I was sued in Germany by Axel Springer due to an ad blocker I wrote. The lower court of Hamburg ruled against me. They openly admitted they did not know what they were doing because the case was too technical for them. They were just happy to please the big corporation.
Hamburg is a favourite for such cases because they just have no clue about technology. They are just old fashioned.
As a small indie developer, I could not afford to keep on fighting. I gave up. I was a psychological wreck. And since it is not binding, big entities can afford to sue you non-stop.
Hamburg was the second time I was in a court. I got sued by the same big corporation. I won the first one.
Despite not being binding Sony will use this as a precedent and they will start going against the bigger DNS players, till all of them have to comply with their demands.
>They were just happy to please the big corporation
In Germany?! Never! /s
This reminds me how the gyms in Germany were told by the government they were not allowed to collect membership fees during the lockdown but the big chains did it anyway on the basis of "what are you gonna do about it?". So if you wanted gyms to comply, each customer had to take their gym to court on an individual basis but most never bothered.
It's crazy, from a foreigner's perspective, with how much shenanigans big business in Germany can get away with legally, considering how strict and bureaucratic Germany is. And don't get me started on customer service.
The problem is that this precedent applies not just to DNS operators, but to literally _any_ unrelated bystander. Sony make very clear in their complaint that Quad9 has no relationship with any party to the alleged infringement. That's why their so excited about this, it's a step further than they've ever taken before.
Are you a German resident or otherwise subject to their jurisdiction? What would happen if you just ignored the lawsuit, and/or ignored the final judgment?
This reminds me of hearing about a surge of tech patent cases being litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, though according to this paper, there were perhaps reasons other than selecting a jurisdiction based on purported lack of the locals’ familiarity with technology: https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&con...
This, again, is like the local phone company being forced to block your ability to call people because of an assertion that the person being blocked has infringed on their copyright. It's clear that the phone company has nothing to do with the situation and it's a massive legal overreach to compel them to get involved.
But media megacorps have never cared about logic or sanity. They make their own reality with their piles of money and lawyers.
No, actually, that was where things stood BEFORE this injunction. The phone company is an intermediary party, with a relationship to at least one of the parties to an alleged infringement. The whole point of this injunction is that it applies to us as a party with NO relationship to the alleged infringing parties. It relies upon a German law that says that uninvolved bystanders are also liable.
I really, really don't like DNS censorship. I think that if a site is bad enough to warrant being taken down, it should be taken down by the authorities that host it.
OR, these governments should have a formal enforcement regime that monitors and sends takedown requests to DNS resolvers.
Then, high-tech people will either use .onion, or we will see again the popularity of alt-root DNS services.
So will the alt-root DNS website (whose domain is on the "official" root) be taken down, because it is a pointer to a pointer to potentially illegal stuff?
Where does it end? Or will the goal be simply to make it hard enough that only 1% of people know how to access it, vs. 20%?
Reading the suit, it is interesting that it is very much based around the fact that Quad9 already blocks resolution for "malicious" domains, and therefore already has a censorship process in place. Basically "you're already censoring, one more domain won't hurt."
That's the assertion Sony makes, but that doesn't actually make it true. Quad9 doesn't do any blocking, Quad9 relies entirely upon third-party expert malware analysts to define the blocks. Quad9 only decides what _not_ to block. Also, Quad9 blocks the same malware and phishing everywhere, because we don't know who or where users are. So Sony asserts that this is possible, but they certainly don't demonstrate how it could be done, much less who would pay for it.
I run an email forwarding[0] app and I need to do a lot of DNS query(for spam filtering purpose), I run dnsmasq top load balance between CloudFlare, OpenDNS, GoogleDNS, Quad9 and Hetzner DNS. Quad9 outperform the rest with 2-4x faster and more reliable. In term of reliable I meant they won't rate limit me.
If anyone need reliable DNS, Quad9 rocks it. I'll contribute my part on this battle too.
I have run my own DNS resolver since that time when VeriSign decided to hijack all unregistered .com and .net domains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_Finder); by running your own recursive DNS resolver, it could detect the hijacked responses and turn them back into the correct NXDOMAIN response.
I like this dig at Sony. I don't believe for a second that Sony has any interest of the artists in mind. It's all about their own profits at all cost. They wouldn't care in the slightest if artists died of hunger. But that's just my opinion from dealing with the record labels myself.
This is a strange case in my opinion. Quad9 and other open DNS servers such as CloudFlare, AddGuard, CleanBrowsing, Comodo, Google, OpenDNS, UltraDNS, Dyn, Yandex, HE.net and other open recursive servers are additive. They are not authoritative for the offending domain, nor are they promoting it. Just because some of these servers happen to filter malicious sites does not mean their role or legal responsibility is to filter sites that break copyright laws. This is the wrong target and sets a bad precedent in my opinion. I am not a lawyer. The right approach would be to have the domain seized and removed from the root servers. There is already a process in place for this as I am sure Sony is aware.
I could see some people equating Quad9 to a CDN but that is not the same. CDN's require the offender to set up an account and manually point the CDN to their site after accepting an acceptable use policy. An open DNS server requires no setup by the offender and no AUP. Anyone can point their client to the open DNS servers and request any domain.
I hope this is not frowned upon here but I believe the domain in question is canna[dot]sx. You can confirm this by taking some of the URLs in the report and substituting the blacked out domain with it and it indeed shows the Evanescence album that the document points to.
(I got this by doing reverse dns lookups on some of the IPs they list without censoring)
Edit: I have tried resolving using 9.9.9.9 and get the same answer as other DNS servers, even running from a VPS in Germany. It appears they have not blocked it yet?
Though they redacted the domain name at issue, they failed to redact the IP address that it resolves to. As a result, I can say that the domain at issue is www.canna.to. Further confirmation of this is that the banner of the forum associated to that page, board.canna.to, has a banner warnings its users that it's moved to board.canna.tf to avoid the DNS block ("Um einer DNS-Sperre auch des Boards vorzubeugen, haben wir es von canna.to abgekoppelt.").
Independent of the current case (and Hamburg rulings in gernal), I haven't made up my mind yet about DNS blocking.
The countless analogies don't really help me to find the right approach to handle these kinds of things.
First, the "it only increases friction" argument: Basically everything is like that. Barely anything is absolute in the regard. If locked doors are effective at stopping most get-ins, it doesn't matter that they can easily be opened with a bit of skill.
Second, should every country have to accept everything that is legal to host in any other country, i.e., should countries be allowed to make and uphold their own laws? I mostly think so, but am not sure how to achieve this. Violations can easily be outside of the reach of the country but there is still a desire to prevent the influence. Is DNS resolution an appropriate point to attack this problem? I am not sure, neither from an effectiveness nor an sensibility point of view, but I find the point of view to pursue everyone in their home jurisdiction (if it can be determined at all) convincing either.
> should countries be allowed to make and uphold their own laws? I mostly think so
Isn't that backward? The question is, should people be free to make their own choices and live their own lives? I don't care about countries, I care about people.
Ridiculous! A terrible precedent and failure of logic. I'm struggling to find words to express my frustration. They don't even list the domains that we aren't allowed to resolve!
Can we use this precedent to sue the US government in court for using DNS to kill Yemenis (drones run software like libc, libc uses DNS), or perhaps to sue Kellogg's for making breakfast cereal that was eaten by someone on the morning they decided to kill someone?
[+] [-] seviu|4 years ago|reply
Hamburg is a favourite for such cases because they just have no clue about technology. They are just old fashioned.
As a small indie developer, I could not afford to keep on fighting. I gave up. I was a psychological wreck. And since it is not binding, big entities can afford to sue you non-stop.
Hamburg was the second time I was in a court. I got sued by the same big corporation. I won the first one.
Despite not being binding Sony will use this as a precedent and they will start going against the bigger DNS players, till all of them have to comply with their demands.
[+] [-] ChuckNorris89|4 years ago|reply
In Germany?! Never! /s
This reminds me how the gyms in Germany were told by the government they were not allowed to collect membership fees during the lockdown but the big chains did it anyway on the basis of "what are you gonna do about it?". So if you wanted gyms to comply, each customer had to take their gym to court on an individual basis but most never bothered.
It's crazy, from a foreigner's perspective, with how much shenanigans big business in Germany can get away with legally, considering how strict and bureaucratic Germany is. And don't get me started on customer service.
[+] [-] bwoodcock|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IndignantNerd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akoster|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hawski|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fsflover|4 years ago|reply
You probably could ask EFF for help in this case.
[+] [-] z3ncyberpunk|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 88840-8855|4 years ago|reply
I remember "the good old web" (tm) where people did stuff anonymosly. In this way people can stay safe and continue publishing stuff.
[+] [-] curiousfab|4 years ago|reply
This Hamburg court in particular has produced hundreds of scandalous injunctions over the years, many of which were overturned later.
[+] [-] xxpor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superkuh|4 years ago|reply
But media megacorps have never cared about logic or sanity. They make their own reality with their piles of money and lawyers.
[+] [-] lugged|4 years ago|reply
[1] http://mafiaa.org/
[+] [-] ajsnigrutin|4 years ago|reply
But in the end, this means that people will start using the alternatives more.... hopefully.
[+] [-] bwoodcock|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unethical_ban|4 years ago|reply
OR, these governments should have a formal enforcement regime that monitors and sends takedown requests to DNS resolvers.
Then, high-tech people will either use .onion, or we will see again the popularity of alt-root DNS services.
So will the alt-root DNS website (whose domain is on the "official" root) be taken down, because it is a pointer to a pointer to potentially illegal stuff?
Where does it end? Or will the goal be simply to make it hard enough that only 1% of people know how to access it, vs. 20%?
[+] [-] intellirogue|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adsche|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bwoodcock|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avh02|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] felixg3|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _aleph2c_|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vorticalbox|4 years ago|reply
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/barbblock
[+] [-] getcrunk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kureikain|4 years ago|reply
I run an email forwarding[0] app and I need to do a lot of DNS query(for spam filtering purpose), I run dnsmasq top load balance between CloudFlare, OpenDNS, GoogleDNS, Quad9 and Hetzner DNS. Quad9 outperform the rest with 2-4x faster and more reliable. In term of reliable I meant they won't rate limit me.
If anyone need reliable DNS, Quad9 rocks it. I'll contribute my part on this battle too.
Thanks Quad9
---
0: https://hanami.run
[+] [-] the8472|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cesarb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdbaggy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s800|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bwoodcock|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] varispeed|4 years ago|reply
I like this dig at Sony. I don't believe for a second that Sony has any interest of the artists in mind. It's all about their own profits at all cost. They wouldn't care in the slightest if artists died of hunger. But that's just my opinion from dealing with the record labels myself.
[+] [-] irthomasthomas|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LinuxBender|4 years ago|reply
I could see some people equating Quad9 to a CDN but that is not the same. CDN's require the offender to set up an account and manually point the CDN to their site after accepting an acceptable use policy. An open DNS server requires no setup by the offender and no AUP. Anyone can point their client to the open DNS servers and request any domain.
[+] [-] progbits|4 years ago|reply
(I got this by doing reverse dns lookups on some of the IPs they list without censoring)
Edit: I have tried resolving using 9.9.9.9 and get the same answer as other DNS servers, even running from a VPS in Germany. It appears they have not blocked it yet?
[+] [-] hlieberman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apazzolini|4 years ago|reply
This is the kind of shit that makes me reconsider returning to piracy.
[+] [-] Y_Y|4 years ago|reply
- John Gilmore
[+] [-] mnouquet|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ketzu|4 years ago|reply
The countless analogies don't really help me to find the right approach to handle these kinds of things.
First, the "it only increases friction" argument: Basically everything is like that. Barely anything is absolute in the regard. If locked doors are effective at stopping most get-ins, it doesn't matter that they can easily be opened with a bit of skill.
Second, should every country have to accept everything that is legal to host in any other country, i.e., should countries be allowed to make and uphold their own laws? I mostly think so, but am not sure how to achieve this. Violations can easily be outside of the reach of the country but there is still a desire to prevent the influence. Is DNS resolution an appropriate point to attack this problem? I am not sure, neither from an effectiveness nor an sensibility point of view, but I find the point of view to pursue everyone in their home jurisdiction (if it can be determined at all) convincing either.
[+] [-] wolverine876|4 years ago|reply
Isn't that backward? The question is, should people be free to make their own choices and live their own lives? I don't care about countries, I care about people.
[+] [-] _ink_|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _-david-_|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aorth|4 years ago|reply
Can we use this precedent to sue the US government in court for using DNS to kill Yemenis (drones run software like libc, libc uses DNS), or perhaps to sue Kellogg's for making breakfast cereal that was eaten by someone on the morning they decided to kill someone?
[+] [-] Vaslo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lehi|4 years ago|reply