Fwd: Sony Wins Pirate Site Blocking Order Against DNS-Resolver Quad9
An interesting development. In the US, the CIA/FBI just block the site either through DNS or through the hosting provider. Now this case happens in Europe and in Germany, out of all places. It is interesting to see what this is likely to mean - but I do note that the "service" is not just a public resolver, but it pertains to block out malware and phishing. Thus Sony won the case. Kindest regards, Olivier
*From:* Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com <mailto:monty@roscom.com>> *Date:* June 24, 2021 at 17:10:28 EDT *Subject:* *Sony Wins Pirate Site Blocking Order Against DNS-Resolver Quad9*
Sony Wins Pirate Site Blocking Order Against DNS-Resolver Quad9 (Updated)
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.
https://torrentfreak.com/sony-wins-pirate-site-blocking-order-against-dns-re... <https://torrentfreak.com/sony-wins-pirate-site-blocking-order-against-dns-re...>
On Jun 25, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
An interesting development. In the US, the CIA/FBI just block the site either through DNS or through the hosting provider.
But not through the recursive resolver. Through the registrar, typically, which actually has a relationship with one of the parties to the infringement (or whatever’s at issue).
Now this case happens in Europe and in Germany, out of all places.
It’s not surprising at all. That specific court in Hamburg was chosen very deliberately, for the same reason the equivalent patent actions take place in Marshall, Texas.
I do note that the "service" is not just a public resolver, but it pertains to block out malware and phishing. Thus Sony won the case.
That had nothing to do with it. Sony began this process thirty-five days after we moved out from behind the shield of the Northern California district courts, which continues to protect all of the other large recursive resolvers. -Bill
On Jun 25, 2021, at 12:32 AM, Bill Woodcock via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
On Jun 25, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
An interesting development. In the US, the CIA/FBI just block the site either through DNS or through the hosting provider.
But not through the recursive resolver. Through the registrar, typically, which actually has a relationship with one of the parties to the infringement (or whatever’s at issue).
Now this case happens in Europe and in Germany, out of all places.
It’s not surprising at all. That specific court in Hamburg was chosen very deliberately, for the same reason the equivalent patent actions take place in Marshall, Texas.
I do note that the "service" is not just a public resolver, but it pertains to block out malware and phishing. Thus Sony won the case.
That had nothing to do with it. Sony began this process thirty-five days after we moved out from behind the shield of the Northern California district courts, which continues to protect all of the other large recursive resolvers.
And, FWIW, we just posted the injunction: https://quad9.net/news/blog/quad9-and-sony-music-german-injunction-status -Bill
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? And if it did not, I wonder why not (instead of seeking to injunct only one DNS resolver service provider)? Justine On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 07:02, Bill Woodcock via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On Jun 25, 2021, at 12:32 AM, Bill Woodcock via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
On Jun 25, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
An interesting development. In the US, the CIA/FBI just block the site either through DNS or through the hosting provider.
But not through the recursive resolver. Through the registrar, typically, which actually has a relationship with one of the parties to the infringement (or whatever’s at issue).
Now this case happens in Europe and in Germany, out of all places.
It’s not surprising at all. That specific court in Hamburg was chosen very deliberately, for the same reason the equivalent patent actions take place in Marshall, Texas.
I do note that the "service" is not just a public resolver, but it pertains to block out malware and phishing. Thus Sony won the case.
That had nothing to do with it. Sony began this process thirty-five days after we moved out from behind the shield of the Northern California district courts, which continues to protect all of the other large recursive resolvers.
And, FWIW, we just posted the injunction:
https://quad9.net/news/blog/quad9-and-sony-music-german-injunction-status
-Bill
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
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
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
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
Thanks for the follow-up & explanations, Bill, and for the very valid points you make in the response. I do have a question, below: On 25/06/2021 00:32, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jun 25, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
An interesting development. In the US, the CIA/FBI just block the site either through DNS or through the hosting provider. But not through the recursive resolver. Through the registrar, typically, which actually has a relationship with one of the parties to the infringement (or whatever’s at issue).
Now this case happens in Europe and in Germany, out of all places. It’s not surprising at all. That specific court in Hamburg was chosen very deliberately, for the same reason the equivalent patent actions take place in Marshall, Texas.
I do note that the "service" is not just a public resolver, but it pertains to block out malware and phishing. Thus Sony won the case. That had nothing to do with it. Sony began this process thirty-five days after we moved out from behind the shield of the Northern California district courts, which continues to protect all of the other large recursive resolvers.
-Bill
Why would quad9 move out from behind the shield of the Northern California district courts? Was this a test case? Kindest regards, Olivier
On Jun 25, 2021, at 1:34 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Thanks for the follow-up & explanations, Bill, and for the very valid points you make in the response. Why would quad9 move out from behind the shield of the Northern California district courts? Was this a test case?
Switzerland has criminal privacy laws. So by moving from the US, which has, essentially, no privacy laws, to Switzerland, we give our users recourse globally, regardless of their domicile or citizenship, because if we were to collect their data, we would be criminally liable to the Swiss data privacy office… it doesn’t matter whose privacy was violated. So this was about privacy, not about copyright trolls. I would have said “not our monkeys, not our circus” until it pitched its tent on our doorstep last Friday. For ourselves, we can just have the Swiss courts throw it out, as not being enforceable on a Swiss entity: https://www.reuters.com/article/swisscom-court-idUSFWN20M0KT …but that would leave the precedent standing in Hamburg, which can be applied to anyone in the EU. Any anti-virus software, any operating system vendor, any IT administrator. This is an incredibly broad lever. Yes, I know German law doesn’t exactly recognize the same principle of precedent that US law does, but it’s similar, and Sony has argued this on the basis of precedent, so... -Bill
participants (4)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Justine Chew -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
钱忆亲