Re: "We agree with the district court’s reasoning"
But really, the judge is perfectly right. Attacking Cloudflare for hosting infringing sites is like attacking those who make roads for facilitating a criminal's getaway.
The problem with your analogy about road makers is that it is fundamentally the same argument as "guns don't kill people, people kill people", or that social media sites like Facebook, and even so-called bulletproof website operators, should not be held in any way responsible for the content that they serve. Perhaps you hold both of these beliefs too, which would be fair enough, but they don't really cut much ice with many people.
I haven't read the full judgment, but the judge's reasoning described in the article is quite different - "The plaintiffs have not presented evidence from which a jury could conclude that Cloudflare’s performance-improvement services materially contribute to copyright infringement". i.e. As far as it can be imperfectly applied to your analogy, Cloudflare's road improvements did not help facilitate a criminal's getaway.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
