Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Piracy Sony

Sony Wins Pirate Site Blocking Order Against DNS-Resolver Quad9 (torrentfreak.com) 65

Sony Music has obtained an injunction that requires the freely available DNS-resolver Quad9 to block a popular pirate site. The order, issued by the District Court in Hamburg, Germany, is the first of its kind. The Quad9 foundation has already announced that it will protest the judgment, which could have far-reaching consequences. TorrentFreak reports: The Hamburg court found that the DNS service is not eligible for the liability protections that other third-party intermediaries such as ISPs and domain registrars typically enjoy. And if Quad9 fails to comply with the injunction, it will have to pay a fine of 250,000 euros per 'infringing' DNS query plus potentially two years in prison. One of the arguments that Sony brought up in court was that Quad9 already blocks various problematic sites voluntarily. In fact, the DNS-resolver promotes threat blocking as a feature. "Quad9 blocks against known malicious domains, preventing your computers and IoT devices from connecting to malware or phishing sites," the company's website reads.

Bill Woodcock, chairman of the Quad9 foundation, doesn't believe that the company's malware and phishing filters, which help to protect users, are on par with blocking a pirate site. He informed the German news site Heise that Quad9 will appeal to the injunction. Speaking with TorrentFreak, Quad9's General Manager, John Todd, says that the company is still reviewing the order, which it received last Friday. The non-profit foundation doesn't believe its resources should be used to benefit for-profit companies such as Sony.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Wins Pirate Site Blocking Order Against DNS-Resolver Quad9

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    There are plenty of DNS servers out there. Even if they managed to get every last one of them to not resolve a name to an IP address, people who want to access that site will just start circulating the numeric IP address. Just more of the endless game of Whac-a-Mole, Sony, you'll never win.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @02:22AM (#61512200)

      Sony, you'll never win.

      I love your optimism. The corporatocracy seems to be growing in strength to me. The people have no voice. Look at America. Every election the people get to choose either Coke or Pepsi. They're both bad for your health.
      Expect copyrights and patents to infinity coming soon.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The People have a voice, they're just being bullied into not using it. That's what needs to change. People, at least here in the U.S., need to be reminded that they are the government, and those critters in Congress they elected are just their representatives, only empowered by proxy, not by any 'god-given right' like they're acting. POTUS is not supposed to be an Autocrat. Senators and Representatives are not above the average citizen, they exist to SERVE the average citizen -- and they all need to be remi
      • the experience here seems to be one where the power of numbers is more powerful than the power of one. That is, one person attempting to passively speak out against something is not going to ever be as effective as a large, organized, monitarily incentivised, organism. As long as there are groups actively seeking to make a profit from indifference on the wings of self indulgent protest, the owners of those product will remain just as organized and fervent to protect their income. No one can argue that the
    • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

      If your momentarily consider a world where name resolution is a battlefield:

      Case 1: A few shutdowns on the most used DNSes
      A low tier internet nerd or general power user can configure their machine to use a different DNS that is not controlled.
      If the situation persists, companies that offer VPN programs (and services, but the programs are the salient point, as they are already all about wrapping up a secure web experience for their users) will make it available to all users.
      The VPNs are already spread acros

      • It's true Tor may not survive forever. Nothing ever will. People are resilient, people organize, people innovate. People progress.

        Tor Project says they don't build any censorship within their systems... even though they recognize there is a lot out there that shouldn't exist. They see it as a slippery slope. Quad9 didn't have that wisdom. In this case the Judge was perceptive to that argument.

        Apple has a similar strategy to thwart government overreach.

        • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

          So Quad9 could at the same time block Sony for maliciousness.

          However what might cause more headache is is the root servers are forced to block "unwanted" resources.

      • In 10 years we will have forgotten DNS. https://ipfs.io/ [ipfs.io]

        https://itsblockchain.com/ever... [itsblockchain.com]

        • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

          So, do these blockchain domain queries take a couple of hours, burn a few megawatts of power and cost several dollars each?

    • My first thought was âoefor how long?â If I acquire that domain, do I have to get a court to remove the block so I can sell my clothing line?
  • by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @02:15AM (#61512182)
    Going back to the same story we've had every single week for over twenty years, judge with training in legal system has absolutely no understanding of modern technical systems and the internet whatsoever but feels qualified to to make major legal decisions regarding such anyway because they have a stick with a little bangy thing on the end. This story is expected to repeat itself at least once a week for all the rest of eternity. And now the weather.
    • Yes, every time this happens the site opens again in a few days and usually more unblockable that it had been.
    • by glum64 ( 8102266 )
      Well, in those jurisdictions that I am familiar with, a judge is not expected to have expertise of any level in anything technical. Contending parties usually may bring an expert to the court and the judge must listen.
      • Yup, lawyers and judges should not have expertise in fields outside their profession. It actually impacts their impartiality.

        This is why the legal scape in loaded in "expert this" and "expert that" legal terms and definitions. Examples: Expert witness. Expert testimony, Expert opinion, subject matter expert, etc.

        Both sides provide experts with opposing views and the judge decides a good middle ground . I wonder where the defense messed up; they probably could have asked the EFF to provide an expert statemen

    • by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @07:09AM (#61512526)

      Equally as predictable is that some /, commentor with no understanding of the legal system will think they have a valid critique just because they once saw a show that had a trial in it.

      It is not a judges responsibility to have 'understanding of modern technical systems' any more than it his job to have understanding of 'modern sugical techniques' or 'modern forensics' or 'modern weapons'. It is his job to apply the law as written by whatever legislative body wrote the law.

      Do you think every judge that gives a fine for speeding is wrong because 'he doesn't understand that modern automotive engineering means that cars go fast'? If the law says you can be sued for aiding piracy, then you can be sued for aiding piracy. The technical hows and whys don't matter one iota.

      • by glum64 ( 8102266 )
        Still, that `aiding' line could be quite thin. Suppose I am an arms maker for the civilian sector. Do I aid armed robbery? Experts in a courtroom are a necessity.
        • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

          If you had knowledge that a gun was to be used in a robbery, and you sold it anyway, you most certainly would be held responsible. Quad9 now (at the very least) has knowledge that some site(s) are aiding piracy. If they don't do something about it, they are liable.

          I never said or implied that experts are not necessary in a courtroom. But there is no technical issue here at all. Quad9 is not claiming that is technically impossible for them to comply (for which they could have expert witnesses and Sony co

          • by penix1 ( 722987 )

            Quad9 now (at the very least) has knowledge that some site(s) are aiding piracy. If they don't do something about it, they are liable.

            What is the likely result though? Now you have Sony. Tomorrow it is China wanting sites blocked that express views against them. Iran wanting sites that are anti Muslim blocked. Where does it end because, you see, everyone has a beef against something. Where does it end?

            • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

              What is the likely result though? Now you have Sony. Tomorrow it is China wanting sites blocked that express views against them. Iran wanting sites that are anti Muslim blocked. Where does it end because, you see, everyone has a beef against something. Where does it end?

              It already happened. China blocks sites that express democracy and freedom. Iran already blocks anti-Muslim sites.

              The thing is though, that sites that are legal in the country stay up. So if piracy was legal somewhere the site could be hoste

            • That was yesterday. A load of Iranian websites were blocked by the US government.

          • Quad9 now (at the very least) has knowledge that some site(s) are aiding piracy. If they don't do something about it, they are liable.

            The whole point of this particular injunction is that Sony acknowledges that there's no connection between Quad9 and any infringing party. That's not the case with ISPs, for instance, who have a relationship with either the person posting the file, or the person downloading it. Why this case is so interesting is that it's the copyright industry taking another step further, and asserting that they can hold _anyone_ liable.

            So there's no argument here about Quad9 that doesn't hold equally true for the electri

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      A lot of people think that the judge just makes up the rules based on their personal feelings. Even in the US it doesn't work like that, at least not above the very lowest level courts. The decisions are based on what the law says and legal arguments founded on interpretation of that law. In this case it seems that German law allows Sony to ask that a DNS provider stops supplying information about websites that contain pirated Sony material.

      Nothing to do with the judge's opinion on how dumb or otherwise tha

  • by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @02:22AM (#61512198)
    The court only looks at law requirement and technical requirement, and whether it is able to impose a remedy. 1) since quad9 is in Swiss it probably fall under a common umbrella of copyright protection in common market - that solve the ability to impose remedy. Since quad9 HAS the capability of blocking, and blocking would by quad9 assume it would reduce traffic (since it reduces it for malware site) it did not matter to the court that the blocking was used for something else, all that is relevant to the court is *the capability exists*. After that the court most probably looked at whether it was within the right of the copyright holder to ask the dns to be made inaccessible, and from the copyright law it most probably is, it does not matter if you can access it with direct IP or other dns. quad9 being in EU jurisdiction can indeed be required to make a DNS non accessible as a form of remedy to a server doing copyright infringement. Remember it is the EU : while in the state you may under free speech may say pretty much all sort of thing, and thus put a sign "drug this direction" it is probably not allowed in the EU, thus the dns can be required to remove the "drug this direction" sign. Or in this case the copyright infringement.
    • quad9 being in EU jurisdiction can indeed be required to make a DNS non accessible

      quad9 is in EU jurisdiction because it's accessible within the EU? I wonder if instead (or in addition to) it has something to do with Switzerland being in the EEA and some part of that agreement regarding copyright.

      If this analysis is correct it reeks of EU censorship (at the behest of Sony) of a non-EU entity. I don't know what the freedom of speech laws are in Switzerland but I imagine if the people of Switzerland were told they had to remove something they said online because it was against EU law th

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's covered by these EU rules because Switzerland signed up to them. Switzerland wants access to the extremely valuable EU market, which is only offered on the basis of mutual alignment of rules and mutual recognition of legal rulings.

        It makes sense because the whole idea is that cross border trade is made frictionless because the rules are the same everywhere and legal decisions are respected everywhere.

        The Swiss are of course free to withdraw from that agreement, but in doing so they would lose access to

    • by LubosD ( 909058 )

      Remember it is the EU : while in the state you may under free speech may say pretty much all sort of thing, and thus put a sign "drug this direction" it is probably not allowed in the EU, thus the dns can be required to remove the "drug this direction" sign. Or in this case the copyright infringement.

      I don't think this comparison is adequate.

      It's more like the court is telling someone "you may not let people interested in buying drugs walk across your backyard to another house that sells them". I'd personally object that I don't have to do what the law doesn't tell me that I must do, hence I shall not be compelled to take action against these passers-by, especially since I'm not financially or otherwise involved in that drug business.

      • by magusxxx ( 751600 ) <magusxxx_2000NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @04:57AM (#61512342)

        So it's the internet version of..."You may not let..." ...people interested in an abortion walk across your state to another which will give you one.
        (Yes, this was unfortunately a thing at one time.)

        And let's not forget...several years ago a Mexican musician refused to resign a contract with Sony. Sony went ahead and put out a greatest hits album without permission. The artist got an injunction only for Sony to say, "Sure, but that can't stop us from selling it in U.S. at Wal-Mart." Which is exactly where they sent all the CDs they weren't allowed to sell in Mexico anymore.

        • So it's the internet version of..."You may not let..." ...people interested in an abortion walk across your state to another which will give you one.
          (Yes, this was unfortunately a thing at one time.)

          It's very nearly a thing now in Georgia...

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
      • It almost seems like it depends on your stance on the issue of "drugs". If you see it as a blight, why would you want to stop any sort of enforcement that might help protect you from the spread and side effects of such a blight. I for one like a nice lawn, and while I dont mow my grass as often as I would like, that doesn't mean I want to open a free access highway across my back yard. If I can get some help from the government to enforce that, then they are spending my tax money well as far as I am concern
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

      Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [wikipedia.org]

  • Landgericht Hamburg (Score:5, Informative)

    by chx496 ( 6973044 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @02:43AM (#61512230)
    As a German I can say that the "Landgericht Hamburg" is quite notorious, to the point that even some lawyers have publicly criticized it. One thing of note is that in Germany you can sue somebody in any court for most disputes on the Internet, because there's a rule that says that as long as the service was accessible within the area of a court, the court may assume jurisdiction. (For most civil issues you'd have to sue in the court that is responsible for the area where the defendant lives in.) This means that when it comes to most copyright-related issues people can choose any court (of the right level) in Germany to sue somebody, even if neither party are from the area of that court. This rule has been restricted somewhat since last December when it comes to laws regarding anti-competitive behavior (for Americans: think FTC-style regulations, e.g. what kinds of information disclosures are required on e-commerce websites, and how competitors may sue when you fail to adhere to them, etc.), but it still applies to copyright, at least as far as I can tell. And since the "Landgericht Hamburg" tends to de-prioritize freedom of speech compared to other considerations, that's where most people that are up against freedom of speech arguments will go to sue.
    • by nashv ( 1479253 )

      Does it also mean that the rulings of the court are only applicable in its are of jurisdiction. In other words, can Quad9 get away with blocking the required sites only for IPs in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg ?

      • by chx496 ( 6973044 )

        That's an interesting question, and I am definitely not a lawyer, but from what I can tell they are valid (in this specific case) for the entirety of Germany. (Unless the appeals court, the "Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Hamburg" overturns it.) The question of jurisdiction is separate from the question of scope of the ruling. Some courts in the past have argued that rulings for disputes related to the Internet should even apply world-wide, though that is a very contentious legal gray area with no clear answers an

  • Routers gonna route around

  • by ClueHammer ( 6261830 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @03:43AM (#61512282)
    Centralized control is just a bad idea, to many bad actors like governments, corporations, religious groups etc all trying to control what you can and cannot see.
  • by misnohmer ( 1636461 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @04:01AM (#61512302)

    It seems Sony believes and agrees that Quad9 has full discretion on which sites to block, so why not add all Sony owned sites to the blocked sites list, see what happens.

  • Well done Sony!

    should I pour gasoline over my ps4 now and set it on fire?
    dicks!
  • What good is this news if it doesn't tell me where to get Sony's stuff for free? Also, making a note to use 9.9.9.9 next time I need a public DNS resolver. Who knows, it may happen.
  • They should go after telephone books publishers too. I bet there are some addresses and telephone numbers to drug dealers in them.

    • I was thinking that Quad9 should be asked to block far right fake news sites. No doubt Europe has neo-Nazi sites.

      Which site has done more harm, The Pirate Bay or Fox News? I can't recall ever seeing a pirate site that advocated for more guns, no health care, fear of vaccines, and pandemic denial, and violence to overthrow democratic governments.

  • With all the AI talk of moving "towards" a utopian society where people have far more time to do as they please and have UBI or Star Trek like society not needing money.

    VS

    Don't pirate (unless you are the US government stealing oil tankers)

    Where are we really heading?

    There are the narratives in conflict with themselves not just with reality, it seems.
     

  • by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @07:00AM (#61512504) Homepage Journal

    If you're forced into this you MUST return SERVFAIL for the censorship, not NXDOMAIN.

    Our resolver lists need round-robin to work. Don't fuck this up.

  • Where I live, we have also specialised courts: family affairs, employment, traffic, etc. (those besides the regular ones). Maybe it is time for having special courts for matters where technology defines cases.
  • Sony is engaged in Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation [wikipedia.org]. They are using their size and power as intimidation.

    The EU is strengthening anti-SLAPP protection for the internet but those changes are not yet complete.

    https://www.euractiv.com/secti... [euractiv.com]

  • I've been meaning to switch my DNS provider but I kept forgetting. This story not only reminds me to switch providers but has now convinced me to use the primary address of two different providers instead of the primary and secondary address of a single provider. Thank you for provoking me to implement a more robust DNS service, Sony!!!

Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of a subject -- the actual enemy is the unknown. -- Thomas Mann

Working...