yes. It is very interesting to see how the different jurisdictions see the civil liability of the public DNS Resolver. In the Chinese legal context, network service provider only bear joint-liability if they are at fault. Best, Yik Chan -----Original Messages----- From:"Justine Chew via CPWG" <cpwg@icann.org> Sent Time:2021-06-25 08:27:16 (Friday) To: "Bill Woodcock" <woody@pch.net> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [CPWG] Sony Wins Pirate Site Blocking Order Against DNS-Resolver Quad9 Right. Thanks, Bill, for the info. It will be useful to know of the Swiss Courts' ruling on enforceability of the German injunction order, in due course. Justine ----- On Fri, 25 Jun 2021, 07:47 Bill Woodcock, <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Jun 25, 2021, at 1:31 AM, Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On the basis of a lack of familiarity with this case ...... it begs the question, did Sony go after the German pirate site directly? If it did, then what happened there?
My understanding is that they sent them an email. Which undoubtedly went straight to the spam filter. That was a necessary precondition of their ability to file against us, because the pirate site is “closer” to the infringement.
And if it did not, I wonder why not (instead of seeking to injunct only one DNS resolver service provider)?
Because the goal was to go after us, in order to gain a precedent that bystanders unrelated to the infringement are each equally liable for the entire damage. Although we didn’t find out about it until last Friday, the court documents show that they started this whole process just thirty-five days after we moved to Europe. -Bill