The case was brought before a federal court in an emergency hearing this week. Copyright holders should not be allowed to blanket infrastructure companies with blocking requests, co-opting them into becoming private trademark and copyright police. Just because you are providing a service to a website doesn't mean you should be roped into policing it. As things stand at the moment, EFF explains, the court orders mean that 'service providers of every kind' can be held responsible for taking down a site - including the likes of CloudFlare. It hopes that by bringing the matter out into the open, greater transparency will be encouraged. EFF feels this is unfair and that courts are handing out retraining orders that are too far-reaching. When Grooveshark was closed down, it was done so via a sealed court order. It re-opens the question of who is ultimately responsible for the content that appears on sites - those posting it, those hosting it, or any other company involved in the delivery? The move was prompted by the closure of Grooveshark, a music website run by one of CloudFlare's clients. The digital rights group is battling record labels which it says are forcing web firms into becoming the 'copyright police'. The latest fight sees the organization joining forces with web performance and security firm CloudFlare in tackling the site blocking activities of the record industry. The EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) has involved itself in lots of online battles - including the fightback against NSA surveillance, and the drive for net neutrality.

Wordify answers level 66