The fact that they are going after a single DNS resolver instead of directly going after the site hosting the content is a huge red flag. If Sony wins, it does not solve this specific copyright violation claim for Sony because the content is still available and resolvable through all the other DNS resolvers online. It just sets legal precedence that corporations can assert arbitrary censorship through third parties by claiming copyright infringement.
Hi. I'm on the board of the Quad9 Foundation, if anyone has any questions about all this. But, by and large, the folks commenting in this thread are saying about what I would: when Sony goes after the DNS, AND NOT the site hosting what they say is infringing, it gives you a pretty clear picture of their goals.
In the UK we've had ISPs being forced to block sites for a while.<p>Fortunately, it provides a handy list of providers to use with your VPN.
e.g. <a href="https://www.virginmedia.com/help/list-of-court-orders" rel="nofollow">https://www.virginmedia.com/help/list-of-court-orders</a>
This sounds like the same argument used when sites went after PirateBay for hosting pointers to content, even though they never hosted the content itself.
Quad9 already blocks content they don't like... they just call them threat feeds.<p>Edit: not that that's a bad thing, but it's disingenuous to say you're for free speech, and then block some websites and cry when you have to block others.<p>Never half ass two things, whole ass one thing.
IMO the first step to take down a website from the internet should be the domain registrar and hosting provider, if you are a big company or just a normal guy that thinks this page violates xyz. It is very easy to find out the domain registrar and it may work to just a write a simple email, without the need for a lawsuite. And if they don't do what you think would be right, you *could* start a lawsuite with *them.*<p>Finding out the hosting provider *can* be easy, but sometimes it is impossible (cloudflare, etc). But even then looking up where the traffic goes is not that hard and writing them a simple email is also not that hard. Again, if they don't do what you think would be right, you *could* start a lawsuite with *them*.<p>Maybe they have done that and they both didn't comply, but why are they now fighting with a DNS resolver? This doesn't solve anything, anyone can still access that site, if they use another dns resolver or do the recursive resolving themselve.
Tried Quad9. Torrent sites blocked. Removed Quad9 and switched back to Cisco (dnscrypt was a requirement). I cannot tolerate censorship when I'm a grown up adult. I'm 90% sure this is Quad9 choice and not influenced by Sony.
This is another DMCA take down, with lazy judges imposing their ignorance on those they can impose it on and not the criminals.<p>Sony should be going after the web hosters, but then Sony have a history of interpreting the law their way when they included a Rootkit on CD's [1].<p>Similar situatians can be seen here:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34952313" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34952313</a>
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34659768" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34659768</a><p>Maybe Quad9 needs Pirate Bay's lawyers, if this isnt a subtle revenue generating exercise?
<a href="https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-proxy-defeats-polices-github-takedown-with-dmca-counternotice-230204/" rel="nofollow">https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-proxy-defeats-polices-gi...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...</a>