I just saw this news and was wondering if this would call into question the “DNS Providers” quad9 recommendation ?
To recap: Sony won a legal case agains quad9 to force them to block pirating sites. Dangerous precedent against neutral providers that don’t host content.
the argument against this is what would stop sony from going after every other dns provider to block the same url? should we then call those providers into question too?
regardless, this is a disappointing result but at least quad9 fought it. most dns providers wouldn’t bother.
Yes I know. Should we let the reader know when browsing recommendations that this precedent exist ?
Is there a way to move around the web without using DNS providers?
This is not a final judgement. It will be - very likely - overturned by a higher court that has a better understanding of how the InterNet works.
Maybe, dont know the details of the case or the applicable laws but this is nothing new. Courts in Portugal have been asking ISPs to block certain websites upon request by copyright holders for years now. ISPs comply through DNS blocks.
This is MEO’s (Portuguese ISP) DNS resolver if anyone wants to try: 212.55.154.174
Just displays a message stating the address has been blocked due to a court order when you try to access some piracy websites. Some of the stuff blocked is arguably perfectly legal stuff that shows up as one of the top results in google search
As others had already mentioned, the case is not over yet. Moreover, it’s not just Quad9, but Cloudflare is also facing with the same issue, of which the higher court has a decision in favor of Cloudflare explaining that:
“…the best known and most used [DNS resolver] of which is the Google public DNS resolver 8.8.8.8. The defendant’s DNS resolver [Cloudflare] therefore had no significant relevance to the accessibility of the infringing content of the disputed domain.”
This could prove to be a significant benefit to Quad9 case.