[hoherd]

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.

[matheusmoreira]

> It just sets legal precedence that corporations can assert arbitrary censorship through third parties by claiming copyright infringement.

This is already the case though. Copyright monopolists already can DMCA anything out of existence. Their accusations are assumed to be true based on "good faith" and other people are required to bend over backwards to take content down. Nobody is going to spend time and money fighting bullshit claims, they're just going to comply and move on. Which means these monopolists have de facto censorship powers.

Sony in particular is very well known for abusing the legal system and their wealth to drive competitors out of business. They can afford to burn the money of their enemies by forcing them to fight frivolous lawsuits. If I remember right, they destroyed two commercial PlayStation emulators with bullshit lawsuits where they lost in court but won in the market.

[hoherd]

IANAL but doesn't DMCA only apply in USA, whereas this case is taking place in Europe, and would thus provide legal precedent in some European jurisdiction?

[matheusmoreira]

The US Trade Office publishes a literal naughty list of countries that aren't playing nice with its intellectual property laws. Full of language such as "stakeholders" too. Corporations literay use the might of the US government to police their imaginary property across the globe.

Don't underestimate these monopolists. My country regularly makes it to this list. I remember some MPAA asshole coming here to push his agenda being met by journalists asking him why this should be a priority in a country without universal basic sanitation. Now we have increasingly regular IP enforcement. One such operation made national news a few days ago.

[askiiart]

Could you provide a link to the "naughty list"?

[matheusmoreira]

Yes, here's the 2022 PDF:

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/2022%20Notoriou...

[torified]

Quite a useful list of naughty websites in there too...

[betaby]

USA successfully enforces its laws everywhere https://torrentfreak.com/how-the-us-pushed-sweden-to-take-do...

[saddlerustle]

The DMCA is the US’s implementation of the 1996 WIPO copyright treaty, which almost the entire developed world has ratified.

[DoItToMe81]

The EU also has implemented even worse takedown laws and is currently fining and suing its members for not following their regulations on them.

[Tozen]

> 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.

This point is tremendous. The intention is outright censorship, and using among the most obvious ways possible. It means that a company, and then government and political entities, can force their will and censorship on all DNS resolvers for whatever reasons. It clearly won't stop at Quad9, but be used as a precedent, to exert near full control and censorship on the web as they see fit.

It's also a set up, for an obvious next stage, in which such companies and government entities will be able to force which DNS resolvers ISPs and users will be legally able to use in the future. Because if they win, they will then create measures to enforce compliance. That can mean, which DNS resolvers are used, because they are or are not compliant.

> ...does not solve this specific copyright violation claim.

The point of such companies and entities is to ignore user rights and to centralize their control, for their profits. This includes forcing their policies and politics anywhere on the planet.

They don't want to have to prove their case directly. Rather they wish to simply be able to make a claim or push that simply the possibility of copyright infringement is enough, so as to exert censorship on 3rd parties of limited resources who won't be able to fight back.