[embedding-shape]

Ok, besides avoiding the blocks altogether, you seem to know of a less destructive approach, please do share it, I'll share whatever you come up with to my representative as I've managed to have a dialogue about this with them before.

But it has to be something, and cannot be "Don't do the blocks" obviously since it's already ruled it should be blocked, but since you've managed to come up with a block so it doesn't have to affect even those Cloudflare IPs, could you please share the method you've come up with?

[debugnik]

Why does the end justify the means here? Revising the ruling should be an option: The blocks clearly aren't working, everyone I know who pirates matches tells me their sources have barely been affected, and others share the same here. Meanwhile I, that don't care about football but pay for my ISP, can't visit during matches most of the sites I regularly visit. Why am I an acceptable casualty in the piracy wars?

> But it has to be something

I think you're falling for the politician's syllogism. Pressure to do "something" doesn't mean we should do anything, specially if this "something" has already proven worse than even doing nothing.

[TZubiri]

Just to clarify your position, Spain should allow US companies to not comply with court orders for US company operations within Spain jurisdiction? So Spain should just allow another country to do whatever, or to use some extra-legal judgment criteria to discern whether something is worth following the law for and what is not worth the hassle?

[debugnik]

Please point out where in my comment it says that's my position.

If the courts decided Cloudflare has to be banned, let it be banned. But so far they haven't had a trial, much less a sentence. We're just enabling a private company to interfere with the services of another, which represents a huge part of the internet even if we don't like it, simply because the former claims the trade-off is necessary and acceptable.

And since the only actual evidence I can access (weak as it is) points to these blocks barely working, I claim that this trade-off is not worth it and we're just inflicting pain on people not watching the matches for a very slim benefit to LaLiga. Bring Cloudflare to the courts if you must, but leave us alone until they figure it out.

[TZubiri]

>But so far they haven't had a trial, much less a sentence.

Wrong, here's a sentence with reference to the original case.

https://www.iberley.es/jurisprudencia/sentencia-civil-juzgad...

I apologize if this sounds rude, but it just sounds like you aren't familiar with the case or the subject matter at all, please perform some research if you want to make claims about what ought to be.

[debugnik]

Bullshit, that sentence just enables LaLiga and Telefonica to interfere with hosts like Cloudflare, which I claim is an excessive measure before a trial against them. It does not claim that Cloudflare is breaking the law, and Ctrl+F "Cloudflare" just shows one hit about Encrypted Client Hello.

Here's the list of companies that actually were sued here, to let them block:

> 1.Vodafone España, S.A.U. 2. Vodafone ONO, S.A.U. 3. MASORANGE Orange Espagne, S.A.U. 4. DIGI SPAIN TELECOM, S.L.U. 5. TELEFÓNICA ESPAÑA, S.A.U. 6. TELEFÓNICA MÓVILES ESPAÑA,S.A.U.

I apologize if this sounds rude, but it just sounds like you aren't familiar with the case or the subject matter at all, please perform some research if you want to make claims about what ought to be.

And now more seriously, I've got a right to think the court's decision is wrong even if it's legal, get over it.

[TZubiri]

>And now more seriously, I've got a right to think the court's decision is wrong even if it's legal, get over it.

I just feel my personal opinions on the subject matter almost zero, especially since I'm not involved in the dispute, nor a citizen of either country. If you are american you are somewhat compelled, but I think that jurisdictionally, they have sovereignity, which is much harder to deny. Like even if you think the case itself and the sentence are wrong, ok, I get it. But I think we should compartimentalize and respect the venue, I don't think even cloudflare is arguing against the venue, claiming somehow that the US courts are proper for the case. But I could be wrong.

> It does not claim that Cloudflare is breaking the law

Right, I read that there was no trial or sentence at all. The linked trial was not claimed against Cloudflare at all, but the sentence does compel CloudFlare and refers to other several summons for CloudFlare (I read somewhere that it totals more than 100).

Here's a recent story I found on the CEO being personally sued on criminal charges:

>https://www.advanced-television.com/2026/03/04/spain-court-s...

Can't speak a lot on this specific case, but I personally wouldn't want to step into a country that sues me criminally. This is somewhat permissible for CloudFlare since it is a security company, so it probably isn't the first time they have had such an issue. But still, this is definitely not nothing.

What seems correct is that Cloudflare itself has not yet been the defendant of a civil suit for damages yet. But to be fair, they went straight for criminal charges, which to my estimation is way more decisive (and appropriate).

EDIT: Cloudflare is a defendant along with the CEO. With some nuances on terminology due to the common/civil, but I believe defendant is an accurate translation of "investigado"

[embedding-shape]

> Why does the end justify the means here?

Because society at large has to be pragmatic, you and I aren't the only people living here, and generally we (Spaniards) all agree that laws are generally made to be followed, in most instances, hence if a judge/the courts order something, we generally feel like that should be followed. You don't like it? Fight it legally, like the system is setup to work.

> The blocks clearly aren't working, everyone I know who pirates matches tells me their sources have barely been affected, and others share the same here.

Based on anecdotes, which I too have plenty of it working/not working, or based on actual data? Not sure it is the most trustworthy data, I personally don't trust La Liga so much, but last they said was that it was reduced by 60%, and if the blocks weren't actually working, I think they'd say as much, as they'd want to find a "better" way to actually fight it. But unless you have some more trustworthy data to share, I think this is as close as we get to actual evidence and concrete proof: https://www.laliga.com/noticias/fastly-y-laliga-se-unen-para...

> Meanwhile I, that don't care about football but pay for my ISP, can't visit during matches most of the sites I regularly visit.

What exact websites and services can you not visit during the games? I'm with Vodafone, and nowadays during the games Docker Hub is the only service that isn't available, everything else seems to continue working as normal. A year ago the situation was very different.

Did you report the websites you rely on to be victims of the blocks via the forms that are available for precisely this? Seems to eventually unblock the sites you report, give that a try if you haven't already.

> I think you're falling for the politician's syllogism. Pressure to do "something" doesn't mean we should do anything, specially if this "something" has already proven worse than even doing nothing.

I'm not, me as a private individual, before even speaking with anyone, also think it's stupid that Cloudflare chose to do business in Spain yet aren't willing to follow the law.

The ones who feel like you are an acceptable casualty in these piracy wars is Cloudflare, everyone else is following the law, that's why you're not seeing Bunny CDN or Fastly being blocked in the same way as Cloudflare, as they actually respond to legal requests.

Tired of Cloudflare grouping in providing services to clearly illegal services with clearly legal services? Well, maybe ask them to consider following the laws in the countries they operate, or use the actual service meant for reporting "unintended casualties".