Worrying censorship

Geffers

Linux enthusiast
Joined
1 Jul 2021
Messages
385 (0.36/day)
Article by Naomi Brockwell outlining how Sony are legally compelling Quad9 (public name server) to censor certain sites.

This is like holding British Telecom responsible for listing phone numbers of people who commit crime.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Geffers
 

Mars

Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
522 (0.50/day)
Article by Naomi Brockwell outlining how Sony are legally compelling Quad9 (public name server) to censor certain sites.

This is like holding British Telecom responsible for listing phone numbers of people who commit crime.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Geffers
Sony pick on the little guy and the German courts uphold their absurd demands; I find this outrageous.
Of course there is a place for Censorship; but let's not forget that Censorship is the kin of Control, both being the weapons of choice of dictators and despots.
I hope that Quad9 will extricate themselves from this unjust lawsuit. Just because Sony are big and powerful, that does not mean they should be allowed to tread with impunity on whoever they wish.

Besides, this whole law suit is so absurd! Just as Geffers says, this is like holding British Telecom responsible for listing phone numbers of criminals; it is like suing a knife manufacturer for putting a knife in the hand of a murderer.
What next?
 

Uncrowned

Well-known member
Joined
28 Nov 2022
Messages
92 (0.17/day)
I'd say the larger threat is the current US RESTRICT Act as it aims to allow the government full access to not only ban any online platform but also hold people criminally liable for accessing those sites.

It seems like more and more free nations are siding more and more against a free internet.
 

Mars

Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
522 (0.50/day)
I'd say the larger threat is the current US RESTRICT Act as it aims to allow the government full access to not only ban any online platform but also hold people criminally liable for accessing those sites.

It seems like more and more free nations are siding more and more against a free internet.
The problem is that the internet is incredibly open to abuse.
WorldWideWeb indeed! A Web that, figuratively speaking, envelopes the whole globe. A web which makes it so easy to lie in wait within its tangled threads, and snare the unwary; so easy for the unwary to fly right into it.

To mitigate its dangers, measures have to be taken, and it is a fine line that has to be drawn, between protecting the innocent user, or using draconian measures of suppression.
And the joke is that, like a damn virus, hackers will forever mutate; refine their method of infiltration.
They will not be suppressed; it is us, the users, who see our rights and freedoms curtailed.
I can't see it ending any time soon.
 

Digerati

Well-known member
Joined
8 Mar 2022
Messages
59 (0.07/day)
My problem is I totally understand Sony's concerns - and I totally agree with those concerns. The site Sony wants blocked is commonly used to host pirated music, movies, apps and other "IP" (intellectual property) content. The piracy scourge costs $billions annually. It is exactly like how shoplifting from the local grocery cost all consumers as the merchants must raise the prices of all good to avoid going into the red. It is the same with music and video piracy. So EVERY legitimate and practical avenue available to stop it MUST be employed because no one solution will ever work.

But I also agree with the Quad9 and Naomi Brockwell that forcing a DNS resolver to block such sites is not the correct way. They don't store or host IP data. So IMO, Sony needs to go after the registrar (the "GoDaddy" or domain registrar), the company that issued the pirate site's domain name. Or go after the hosting company - the company supplying the servers these pirated tunes sit on. That said, the hosting sites are likely to be in some untouchable country like Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. :(

Sony (like all the big recording companies) is in a pickle. If they insert code to prevent copying, legitimate owners will revolt (as we have in the past) since we will be prevented from making legal copies for our own personal use.

It does make one wonder why Sony didn't go after the bigger resolvers like Google, OpenDNS, or Cloudflare, as examples. It also makes one wonder why the German courts didn't order all resolvers to block those sites.

I personally think (at least I hope) the German courts might be smarter than we think and by making this ruling, will illustrate and illuminate the issue, and make the entire EU, UN and the rest of the world take notice and act on the bigger more immediate issue - IP piracy.

I agree with the Quad9 exec and I believe they will win the appeal - especially if the Swiss government steps in to help (as they should) to tell the German courts to stay out of the Swiss government's business.

****

Can we keep the US RESTRICT Act out of and from derailing this discussion? It is a totally different off topic issue from a "company" telling the rest of the world what to do. I note it is NOT intended to do what the poster above claims. :(

The RESTRICT Act (AKA the TikTok ban) is a "bipartisan" bill intended to "review" transactions between US companies (NOT individuals) and foreign adversaries. Are there some flaws and controversaries in the "proposed" law? Yes. But "both" sides are working on it.

But that is totally different than this Sony vs Quad9 issue and for a different discussion!
 

Mars

Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
522 (0.50/day)
My problem is I totally understand Sony's concerns - and I totally agree with those concerns. The site Sony wants blocked is commonly used to host pirated music, movies, apps and other "IP" (intellectual property) content. The piracy scourge costs $billions annually. It is exactly like how shoplifting from the local grocery cost all consumers as the merchants must raise the prices of all good to avoid going into the red. It is the same with music and video piracy. So EVERY legitimate and practical avenue available to stop it MUST be employed because no one solution will ever work.

But I also agree with the Quad9 and Naomi Brockwell that forcing a DNS resolver to block such sites is not the correct way. They don't store or host IP data. So IMO, Sony needs to go after the registrar (the "GoDaddy" or domain registrar), the company that issued the pirate site's domain name. Or go after the hosting company - the company supplying the servers these pirated tunes sit on. That said, the hosting sites are likely to be in some untouchable country like Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. :(

Sony (like all the big recording companies) is in a pickle. If they insert code to prevent copying, legitimate owners will revolt (as we have in the past) since we will be prevented from making legal copies for our own personal use.

It does make one wonder why Sony didn't go after the bigger resolvers like Google, OpenDNS, or Cloudflare, as examples. It also makes one wonder why the German courts didn't order all resolvers to block those sites.

I personally think (at least I hope) the German courts might be smarter than we think and by making this ruling, will illustrate and illuminate the issue, and make the entire EU, UN and the rest of the world take notice and act on the bigger more immediate issue - IP piracy.

I agree with the Quad9 exec and I believe they will win the appeal - especially if the Swiss government steps in to help (as they should) to tell the German courts to stay out of the Swiss government's business.

****

Can we keep the US RESTRICT Act out of and from derailing this discussion? It is a totally different off topic issue from a "company" telling the rest of the world what to do. I note it is NOT intended to do what the poster above claims. :(

The RESTRICT Act (AKA the TikTok ban) is a "bipartisan" bill intended to "review" transactions between US companies (NOT individuals) and foreign adversaries. Are there some flaws and controversaries in the "proposed" law? Yes. But "both" sides are working on it.

But that is totally different than this Sony vs Quad9 issue and for a different discussion!
You make some valid points, with which I totally agree. Mainly, Sony went after the little guy, why? why didn't they take on the big players? Cost them too much?
I also agree that the American RESTRICT Act is a different kettle of fish, and should not be dragged into the Sony/Quod9 issue.
 

Crims

Wethermon
Joined
5 Aug 2022
Messages
785 (1.18/day)
While I believe Sony won't go after the big guy, it's a naked attempt at control isn't it? There's more to be said from this re: corporations greediness in the future. Big picture Sony likely doesn't actually believe it, and because there's other companies doing this all the time.
 
Last edited:

Digerati

Well-known member
Joined
8 Mar 2022
Messages
59 (0.07/day)
I suspect Sony knows exactly what they are doing too. Their lawyers aren't dumb.
it's a naked attempt at control isn't it?
No. I don't see it that way - at least not control in the greedy sense of the word.

I think Sony, like I suspect the German courts, see this as a way to get the world governments to FINALLY start dealing with IP/copyright infringement and piracy instead of ignoring the problem or constantly kicking the can down the road. I note even the UN charters, that all member countries agree to abide by, dictates each country honors each other's copyrights. Yet that is ignored big time. So what are these various publishing houses and studios to do?

I mean seriously, what is Sony going to gain from forcing Quad9 to block this site? Quad9 is one tiny player among a field of plenty players, small and large. And Germany is but one country where surely it citizens seeking to steal music, movies, etc. have other options to choose from besides Quad9 - and apparently with no fear of consequences for stealing such items either. :(

So it seems clear to me, Sony is just trying bring the problem to the forefront. And the problem is not just Sony and the other big studios losing money. It is also what Mars noted - lots of pirated software is riddled with malware.
 

Retro

Founder
Staff Member
Joined
4 Jun 2021
Messages
4,859 (4.46/day)
Oh Jesus, my heart bleeds for poor little megacorp Sony. 🙄🙄 This ruling sets a bad precedent.

I'll have more to say about this later.
 

Crims

Wethermon
Joined
5 Aug 2022
Messages
785 (1.18/day)
I suspect Sony knows exactly what they are doing too. Their lawyers aren't dumb.

No. I don't see it that way - at least not control in the greedy sense of the word.

I think Sony, like I suspect the German courts, see this as a way to get the world governments to FINALLY start dealing with IP/copyright infringement and piracy instead of ignoring the problem or constantly kicking the can down the road. I note even the UN charters, that all member countries agree to abide by, dictates each country honors each other's copyrights. Yet that is ignored big time. So what are these various publishing houses and studios to do?
I would like to see the conclusion this leads to. I'm pro piracy, and specifically for Sony because they have a lot of anti consumer practices, and I still agree -- it's a topic that needs to be brought forward.
 

Digerati

Well-known member
Joined
8 Mar 2022
Messages
59 (0.07/day)
I'm pro piracy
:( That's pretty sad. How is stealing ever justified - I don't get it.

Do you not realize how many 1000s of small, independent developers went under because their creations were stolen to the point they didn't have enough income to feed and shelter their families? :(

Sony (and many, if not most others) has what you call anti-consumer practices primarily because so many people were copying their products, then selling them, by 10s of 1000s!!! to others without paying Sony (and their developers) a penny.

I happen to agree with you, in part, about Sony. Microsoft, for example, does NOT include Blu-ray support in Windows because Sony demanded something ridiculous, like $10 per license to include it in Windows. That, of course, would be passed along to every Windows buyer even if they never inserted a Blu-Ray player, let alone disk in their computers.

So Microsoft, and rightfully so, left Blu-ray support out. But just because Sony is a "megacorp", that still does not give anyone the right to steal from them. We, do, however, have every right to buy Samsung or LG instead, and tell our friends to buy Samsung or LG - not that that is not the same difference.
 

Uncrowned

Well-known member
Joined
28 Nov 2022
Messages
92 (0.17/day)
Piracy isn't always bad. Most research shows it has mixed results on media companies and likely has little effect on their actual profits, with some studies even suggesting it helps sales through additional promotion via word of mouth.

Piracy also combats anti-consumer tactics used by media companies. When you buy a Bluray, you are allowed to use that media in many formats, including archiving it to a digital backup. Nearly every media company blocks this right via the DRM tech placed into their discs. Many people use "pirate" sites to simply add the digital version of the product they already own.

Piracy also allows ways for media to bypass censorship laws and national borders allowing more people to watch the content or access information that is not otherwise not allowed in their area.

None of those examples hurt media companies and often end up being helpful for all parties involved.

Granted, people can also pirate to steal and this is obviously wrong. Companies should and do have the right to pursue these users and to be successful at this is not exactly easy. Just go ahead and download a Disney and check your email in a few days for the cease and desist order to see that these companies are fairly good at tracking this stuff.

Getting back on track with the Sony v Quad9 issue, I do not support it as it is not Sony seeking legal reimbursement for losses, they appear to just be pulling a power move to justify future censorship. It is not uncommon and actually the normal to pursue legal action future down the chain of a service. E.G. if NerdZone was selling illegal media, Sony should first pursue legal action against the website owner, if that is not possible, then it should go against the server provider, then against the domain provider, etc, etc. DNS services could fall into that chain, but it does not appear Sony is going for an actual sound legal case due to losses and seems to want to just censor the websites it chooses.

There is also the problem of Germany following EU law and the EU law stating DNS providers are not responsible for the content of the websites. Legally removing DNS providers from the previously mentioned chain in Germany. Essentially this creates an outcome where Sony asked a German court to censor a website because they wanted it censored and the court agreed. As by law, Quad9 has done nothing illegal in Germany even if the website in question was 100% illegal.
 

Crims

Wethermon
Joined
5 Aug 2022
Messages
785 (1.18/day)
+1 for mentioning the german cooperation with Sony.
:( That's pretty sad. How is stealing ever justified - I don't get it.

Do you not realize how many 1000s of small, independent developers went under because their creations were stolen to the point they didn't have enough income to feed and shelter their families? :(

Sony (and many, if not most others) has what you call anti-consumer practices primarily because so many people were copying their products, then selling them, by 10s of 1000s!!! to others without paying Sony (and their developers) a penny.
Anyone before the digital era knows media is usually lowered in price as their appeal diminishes with the passing of eras. Due to the digitalisation of things, however, Sony does not lower the price of non mainstream titles creating a barrier to poor people the longer it happens, and the only protest is piracy. Especially, because Sony censors discussion or stablised prices that should be 90% less on 10 year old games,. without corporatism.

Piracy isn't always bad. Most research shows it has mixed results on media companies and likely has little effect on their actual profits, with some studies even suggesting it helps sales through additional promotion via word of mouth.

Piracy also combats anti-consumer tactics used by media companies. When you buy a Bluray, you are allowed to use that media in many formats, including archiving it to a digital backup. Nearly every media company blocks this right via the DRM tech placed into their discs. Many people use "pirate" sites to simply add the digital version of the product they already own.
Definitely. As increases of games, movies, music and other that are "online only" aka you never actually own, and the demand for indie games is always too small to pirate them.
 
Last edited:

Retro

Founder
Staff Member
Joined
4 Jun 2021
Messages
4,859 (4.46/day)
If only I wasn't so busy today, I'd put a full reply here. Anyway, just wanna say that piracy isn't stealing, it's an infringement, big difference. Big Media of course like to conflate the two as part of their propaganda campaign.
 

Digerati

Well-known member
Joined
8 Mar 2022
Messages
59 (0.07/day)
Piracy isn't always bad. Most research shows it has mixed results on media companies and likely has little effect on their actual profits, with some studies even suggesting it helps sales through additional promotion via word of mouth.
Most research? Bullfeathers! Please show us any research that shows piracy is good, or even not bad.

I found one study by Harvard Business Review that said piracy can help promote movies, for example. But NOT increase sales. In fact, it goes on to say,
In most cases, they say, the costs of piracy still outweigh the benefits, and consumers therefore still deserve protections from piracy.


None of those examples hurt media companies and often end up being helpful for all parties involved.
Non of those examples involve are legally considered piracy! Non of those examples involve making copies, then giving away (or worse, selling) to others outside your households.

I found another study by ArsTechnica that had a 45% margin of error making the study "less than statistically significant". It only supported your argument by suggesting gamers who illegally obtained 100 games, legally obtained 24 other games. HOWEVER, the study could not conclude the 24 legal games were obtained because the other 100 were obtained illegally. Also, the 24 legal games did not compensate for all the lost revenue of the 100. So again, nothing statistically significant to suggest piracy was good.

And all studies I found also noted that illegal filesharing and copying is still just that - illegal.

Anyone who is a gamer before the digital era would know games are usually lowered in price, as their appeal is diminished with the passing of console eras.
What does that have to do with the price of rice in China in the summertime when it rains? Nothing! Just as is has nothing to do with making illegal copies for personal gains, or for others who have not purchased it legally.

Anyway, just wanna say that piracy isn't stealing, it's an infringement, big difference.
Different? Yes. Big difference? No. Stealing? YES!!! And it certainly is a crime.

Piracy is not stuffing a CD from a music store down your pants. But it is illegally obtaining something you didn't pay for and in the US, it can get you 5 years in jail and $250,000 in fine per offense.

Is software piracy stealing? Yes!

In the UK too! Yes. https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-its...d-warnings-now-families-pay-the-price-220601/

For those in the UK, look up FACT - and note FACT PSAs (public service announces relates,
peer-to-peer filesharing of movies to stealing a handbag, a car, and other such items (similar to the US FAST "Piracy is theft" slogan of the 1990s).

Unless you see a "big" difference between theft and stealing, piracy is stealing, or theft. Take your pick. Both are illegal.

I guess what is really bugging me here is how some seem to be clamoring on with excuses and rationale to pirate these products. I'm no angel. And back in my C64 days, before I understood the effects of piracy on individuals and companies, I was a big pirate. We even had C-64 swap parties! We even rented out a Rec Center and had over a 100 people there swapping. Thinking back, not a proud moment. :(

This is not Robin Hood stealing back from the Sheriff of Nottingham what he and his thugs first stole from the poor.

Getting back on track with the Sony v Quad9 issue, I do not support it as it is not Sony seeking legal reimbursement for losses, they appear to just be pulling a power move to justify future censorship
Ummm, no. From Sony's viewpoint, it is not about censorship at all. You are right that they are not seeking legal reimbursement. But censorship involves stopping someone from publishing or stating something - typically for political or propaganda purposes. DNS resolvers are not publishing anything. They doing little more than converting C° into F°, or miles into kilometers.

This isn't chump change here. Copyright "infringement" hurts everyone!

Check this out - Piracy Statistics for 2023

The global movie industry loses somewhere between $40 and $97 billion each year.

An estimated 70,000 jobs are lost every years in the US due to music piracy.

Illegal downloading of copyrighted materials consumes 24% of the global bandwidth!!!!
 

Uncrowned

Well-known member
Joined
28 Nov 2022
Messages
92 (0.17/day)
Most research? Bullfeathers! Please show us any research that shows piracy is good, or even not bad.

I found one study by Harvard Business Review that said piracy can help promote movies, for example. But NOT increase sales. In fact, it goes on to say,
Here are two quick studies with their research papers attached.


As it turns out, that European Commission report found that piracy actually increased the number of legitimate sales of videogames.

We find that box office revenues reacted to the sudden shutdown of one of the main supply
channels of unlicensed content, the cyberlocker Megaupload, in intricate ways. Specifically,
the average movie reported less box office revenues after the shutdown.

Ummm, no. From Sony's viewpoint, it is not about censorship at all. You are right that they are not seeking legal reimbursement. But censorship involves stopping someone from publishing or stating something - typically for political or propaganda purposes. DNS resolvers are not publishing anything. They doing little more than converting C° into F°, or miles into kilometers.
Websites are published content, the act on placing a website online is generally called "publishing". You can not claim that it is not censorship as it doesn't fit into political or propaganda genres. You yourself stated that DNS servers do not publish content, so how can a lawsuit deem? The public content is illegal if they do not publish it?

The DNS server itself did not publish anything, but it acts as a service to provide the published content. This is basically like saying a book isn't banned as the law just states it isn't allowed to be offered in book stores or libraries. The end result is the same as neither of those two items published the book, they just provide access to the public.

The problem with these numbers are that they are the theoretical jobs and profit that would be gained if all the pirated content was pursed at full price, not actually recorded loses. And that is not a realistic equation at all as you can easily pirate $500k of music, but most people would never even come close to buying that amount even with zero piracy in the world.
 

Digerati

Well-known member
Joined
8 Mar 2022
Messages
59 (0.07/day)
Websites are published content, the act on placing a website online is generally called "publishing".
Quad9 is not placing any website on line.
but it acts as a service to provide the published content.
No it doesn't. Do you not understand what a DNS resolver does? They are simply "resolving" or converting domain names into IP addresses. As I noted, it is like converting miles to kilometers. They are not providing any published content. In fact, they are not "providing" any "content" at all.

It is nothing like your book analogy. Books have a subject, a topic, a field of study to give the reader an idea of what is happening. There is absolutely nothing Quad9 does to suggest anything whatsoever what a resolved site does.

Do you know what the IP address 64.233.164.84 resolves to just by looking at it? It's Google. If you were not already familiar with Google, would you know what the website www.google.com provides their visitors? No! The word google tells no one anything. So neither would Quad9 or any users of the Quad9 resolver.

So NO! They do NOT provide a service to provide any published content.

The problem with these numbers are that they are the theoretical jobs and profit that would be gained if all the pirated content was pursed at full price, not actually recorded loses.
Oh come on! And all your statistics are actual numbers?

All I see here is you going to great effort to discredit and dismiss everything that demonstrates the problems pirating causes simply to rationalize pirating. I don't get it. It is taking something that does not belong to you. How can you justify that in your own mind, let alone expect others to?

Taking something without permission and/or without proper compensation to the rightful owner is theft, stealing, fraud, infringement - whatever you want to call it, I don't care! It is wrong and illegal! PERIOD. So why keep defending it? It does not matter if the "victim" is Satan himself. If Satan or Putin or Hitler is the rightful owner, it is still illegal and wrong. And whether or not Satan gets hurt or not, it does not matter. It is his slaves who actually did the work who are not getting paid their due.

You are trying to say it is okay to steal a $1 from a billionaire because he has $999,999,999 more. Total nonsense.

Nobody forced you to buy anything from Sony. That's the big difference here.

If you bought a Sony TV or DVD player and feel you got ripped off or didn't get your money's worth, that still does not justify stealing from them. Are you truly going to say it does?
 

Uncrowned

Well-known member
Joined
28 Nov 2022
Messages
92 (0.17/day)
No it doesn't. Do you not understand what a DNS resolver does? They are simply "resolving" or converting domain names into IP addresses. As I noted, it is like converting miles to kilometers. They are not providing any published content. In fact, they are not "providing" any "content" at all.

It is nothing like your book analogy. Books have a subject, a topic, a field of study to give the reader an idea of what is happening. There is absolutely nothing Quad9 does to suggest anything whatsoever what a resolved site does.

Do you know what the IP address 64.233.164.84 resolves to just by looking at it? It's Google. If you were not already familiar with Google, would you know what the website www.google.com provides their visitors? No! The word google tells no one anything. So neither would Quad9 or any users of the Quad9 resolver.

So NO! They do NOT provide a service to provide any published content.
Yes, that is what they do. They are a service to allow a website to utilize a domain name so users can find that website's content.... Or as most would call it ... A service to help provide published content to users. Google would be pretty awful if it was actually called 64.233.164.84 Search.

But I'm not entirely sure what the point here is as explaining how the DNS does not host or directly publish any content makes the Sony lawsuit that their content is illegal even crazier.

Quad9 is not placing any website on line.
True, but I'm pretty sure this makes them getting sued for a torrent website even more confusing. And therefore the lawsuit is even less practical.

Oh come on! And all your statistics are actual numbers?
I don't really have a defense to this as I don't believe I posted any statistics or numbers. I did use the word "most" in a probably exaggerated manner, so I guess this is true.

I'm not disagreeing with you that stealing is bad. Im disagreeing with you that a website with ONE account of copyright infringement (less than a site like YouTube gets per minute) against Sony is not a reasonable justification for the lawsuit or the lawsuit's action. Germany literally broke EU law, their own law, to attack a DNS company for ONE known account of infringement against Sony by a website for who the DNS is not responsible. And an order to block the website is simply unheard of for the offense that is normally a financial fine. This is merely a case of overreach and targeting a website simply for having torrents.
 

Digerati

Well-known member
Joined
8 Mar 2022
Messages
59 (0.07/day)
Huh? You are flip-flopping all over the place. You don't even know what you are arguing or disagreeing with me about. :(

Yes, that is what they do. They are a service to allow a website to utilize a domain name so users can find that website's content.... Or as most would call it ... A service to help provide published content to users.

No. That is like saying a city is aiding and abetting a crook because the city provided the road, with street signs, to the bank he robbed. That's nonsense. The resolver, once again, simply converts a domain name to an IP address. It tells your data packets which path (road) to take. It does not take you to the site, or help provide content any more than the city street provides aid to the robber to rob the bank. The IP address just points in the direction your packets need to go.

Neither the road nor the resolver helps you enter the bank/site. Nor do they have any clue what your intention is once you enter the site.

And no, nobody is calling it that - except the misinformed. :( The service does NOT help provide any content whatsoever.

Im disagreeing with you that a website with ONE account of copyright infringement ... against Sony is not a reasonable justification for the lawsuit or the lawsuit's action.
Huh? I'm not even sure what that says. But nowhere did I say or even imply that Sony is justified in going after Quad9. IMO, they are not. And I said that above. Why? Because for the last time, Quad9 does not provide, or even help provide (contrary to your claims) any content!

If this were a tiny, independent upstart film studio nobody ever heard of with one short, unremarkable film under their belt suing Quad9, this wouldn't even have made the front page of the Entertainment section of some small town newsletter. But because it is Sony, a big, rich corporation, here we are. Because people think every "megacorp" are greedy no-good monsters, who deserve getting ripped off. :(

The real problem here is our lawmakers and government officials have failed, for decades and decades (centuries?), to protect the intellectual property rights of copyrighted materials! And the sad part is, the laws, including international laws to provide such protections, already exist! All UN member nations, including China and others, agreed to it. But the evil nations refuse to enforce them. Some go so far as to state-sponsored counterfeiting! :mad: I mean the Chinese are even making counterfeit Boeing 737 MAX jets!

What good are laws if our governments don't provide law enforcement the necessary resources to uphold them? There surely are $billions and $billions in lost tax revenues - but now the problem is too big and out of control, I fear, to ever get control of. :( And that is especially true when so many people are willing to turn a blind eye and use illegal copies instead of buying a legitimate license.

So is Sony justified in suing Quad9. No, not in my opinion. Are they right in trying to bring attention to this problem. Yes, absolutely. Anyway they can. Since our lawmakers refuse to do anything about it, it leaves them with little choice.
 

Mars

Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
522 (0.50/day)
Yes, that is what they do. They are a service to allow a website to utilize a domain name so users can find that website's content.... Or as most would call it ... A service to help provide published content to users. Google would be pretty awful if it was actually called 64.233.164.84 Search.

But I'm not entirely sure what the point here is as explaining how the DNS does not host or directly publish any content makes the Sony lawsuit that their content is illegal even crazier.


True, but I'm pretty sure this makes them getting sued for a torrent website even more confusing. And therefore the lawsuit is even less practical.


I don't really have a defense to this as I don't believe I posted any statistics or numbers. I did use the word "most" in a probably exaggerated manner, so I guess this is true.

I'm not disagreeing with you that stealing is bad. Im disagreeing with you that a website with ONE account of copyright infringement (less than a site like YouTube gets per minute) against Sony is not a reasonable justification for the lawsuit or the lawsuit's action. Germany literally broke EU law, their own law, to attack a DNS company for ONE known account of infringement against Sony by a website for who the DNS is not responsible. And an order to block the website is simply unheard of for the offense that is normally a financial fine. This is merely a case of overreach and targeting a website simply for having torrents.
Well said. Sony, aided and abetted by the German courts, used a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
And what is more galling, there was no nut to crack in the first place!

The case against Quad9 is bogus, a non-starter, and yet it went thru; Sony prevailed against the little guy, while they would have been laughed out of court had they tried that against the giant Google.

I hope the Swiss government gives the financial support to Quad9, in their appeal.
 

Digerati

Well-known member
Joined
8 Mar 2022
Messages
59 (0.07/day)
The case against Quad9 is bogus, a non-starter, and yet it went thru; Sony prevailed against the little guy,
Well, clearly is was a "starter" as it made it to and even through the courts. But Sony has not prevailed - yet. There is still the appeal process.

My hope is Google, and as you said, the Swiss government and some of the other big DNS resolvers will rally behind Quad9 and provide them the resources they need to properly defend against this.

The sad part is, it won't resolve the root problem. Rampant illegal counterfeiting and filesharing will continue on. :(

We (consumers and private citizens) are in our own way here. We demand absolute privacy and unrestricted freedoms on the Internet. And then we raise a HUGE stink should anyone try to stifle that. But that privacy and those freedoms are impossible to allow without allowing that same privacy and unrestricted freedoms to the bad guys.

At some point, we, the masses, need to accept what the 2nd line in my signature really means. Sacrifices (ceding some freedoms) must be made to be free.
 

Mars

Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
522 (0.50/day)
Well, clearly is was a "starter" as it made it to and even through the courts. But Sony has not prevailed - yet. There is still the appeal process.

My hope is Google, and as you said, the Swiss government and some of the other big DNS resolvers will rally behind Quad9 and provide them the resources they need to properly defend against this.

The sad part is, it won't resolve the root problem. Rampant illegal counterfeiting and filesharing will continue on. :(

We (consumers and private citizens) are in our own way here. We demand absolute privacy and unrestricted freedoms on the Internet. And then we raise a HUGE stink should anyone try to stifle that. But that privacy and those freedoms are impossible to allow without allowing that same privacy and unrestricted freedoms to the bad guys.

At some point, we, the masses, need to accept what the 2nd line in my signature really means. Sacrifices (ceding some freedoms) must be made to be free.
Yeah, it was a "starter" unfortunately, but let's hope it'll hit the buffers.
Also true that the core problem remains: the Internet is now part and parcel of everyday life. It is also the playground of hackers, pirates, paedophiles.....you name it.
I cannot honestly say that I believe that it can ever be 100% policed, and thus guarantee our safety. You know why? because even if we gave up certain freedoms, as you say, 'Freedom in NOT Free', could we trust the gatekeepers? No way!
That is just how life is, things are never either black or white. Not unless you are a zebra.
 

Digerati

Well-known member
Joined
8 Mar 2022
Messages
59 (0.07/day)
could we trust the gatekeepers? No way!
That's why I said we (the consumers) must accept and make the sacrifices. In other words, the "honor system" must prevail. Just because something can be had for free, or for some "too good to be true" price, that does not mean we should, or that it is right to take advantage of those offers.

It is like putting a big bowl of candy out on the porch for Halloween with a sign that says, "Take one". Many will be honest and take just one. Some will look around, then take one big handful. And a few will just grab whole bowl, then brag about what they got away with. :(

The old saying, "Locks are made to keep honest people honest" comes to mind. The problem there is, many consumers will then complain about the locks. It really is a no-win situation for developers - big and small.
 

Geffers

Linux enthusiast
Joined
1 Jul 2021
Messages
385 (0.36/day)
I suspect Sony knows exactly what they are doing too. Their lawyers aren't dumb.
:(

So it seems clear to me, Sony is just trying bring the problem to the forefront. And the problem is not just Sony and the other big studios losing money. It is also what Mars noted - lots of pirated software is riddled with malware.

I reckon they could have highlighted it to a greater extent by maybe going after Google, doubt going after Quad9 will get too much publicity unless they just want the court case and Quad9 is collateral damage.

Geffers
 

Digerati

Well-known member
Joined
8 Mar 2022
Messages
59 (0.07/day)
I reckon they could have highlighted it to a greater extent by maybe going after Google, doubt going after Quad9 will get too much publicity unless they just want the court case and Quad9 is collateral damage.
My "guess" is if they went after Google, Google's fancy dancy, high-priced shysters... err... lawyers would have had it thrown out before it even went before a judge - and then it never would have received any publicity or shed any light on the real problem of illegal filesharing/pirating.

And my hope is if Quad9 does go down as collateral damage that Sony bails them out or fairly compensates them. But, I may be dreaming there.
 
Back
Top Bottom