[HN Gopher] Quad9 blocks pirate site globally after Sony demande...
___________________________________________________________________
Quad9 blocks pirate site globally after Sony demanded EUR10k fine
Author : gslin
Score : 121 points
Date : 2023-07-26 15:03 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| rascul wrote:
| Seems to still resolve @9.9.9.10
|
| https://www.quad9.net/service/service-addresses-and-features...
| cesaref wrote:
| Given how much music is available via streaming services, for
| little money (or none if you can deal with adverts) i'd have
| thought the impact of a pirate music site would be very limited.
|
| I wonder what the impact of this site is on Sony, or whether what
| is really going on is some sort of personal vendetta, as legal
| action is usually a sign that things have got personal.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > I wonder what the impact of this site is on Sony
|
| There is zero impact for Sony Music [0]
|
| > whether what is really going on is some sort of personal
| vendetta
|
| No, they just want what there would be no way to obtain music
| except going through Sony Music.
|
| Yet, there are people who defends them *shrug* [1]
|
| [0] https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2023/04/28/sony-music-
| earni...
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36875710
| sam0x17 wrote:
| Legal departments at big orgs like this tend to just throw
| everything at the wall until something sticks, as a matter of
| course
| Astronaut3315 wrote:
| There's plenty of content that Apple Music is missing. Just
| yesterday I wanted to listen to an album they don't have, but I
| do on my personal server.
|
| Streaming isn't a perfect alternative to ownership (or piracy,
| in this case).
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| Even without impact on them I believe there is still value in
| non-streaming.
|
| I've discovered multiple CDs disappearing from Spotify. The
| FLACs that are sitting on my NAS aren't subject to some finite
| licensing deal.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| They might be trying to set precedence in law. Next time, it
| gets harder for other DNS providers (Google, CloudFlare, but
| also ISPs) to deny such blocks.
| khancyr wrote:
| So Quad9 should block all Sony domains as they are infringing EU
| law and make licenced works in some countries accessible to some
| other where it isn't available through VP
| toyg wrote:
| All this for an Evanescence album - does anyone even remember
| that band exists...?
| accrual wrote:
| I mostly remember that one specific album cover that everyone
| seemed to use as their AIM and MSN Messenger profile photo back
| in the day.
| darkclouds wrote:
| > The DNS resolver stressed that it doesn't condone piracy but
| believes that enforcing blocking measures through third-party
| intermediaries, that don't host any content, is a step too far.
|
| I agree, its like asking members of the public to become road
| traffic cops because they happen to be walking or driving on the
| road when an offence takes place, highly efficient by virtue of
| members of the public being present to witness said offence but
| it sets a dangerous precedence of people taking the law into
| their own hands.
|
| What Sony wants (and everyone else) is the ability to protect our
| work and data. Thats the holy grail and there isnt really any way
| to do this at the moment apart from doing our own hardware, like
| a betamax player that could also play vhs.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| I really hope their appeal succeeds as otherwise we're going to
| get a lot of copyright holders getting control over DNS services.
| akaitea wrote:
| Thanks Sony, I had no idea this site existed until now
| supernikio2 wrote:
| Quintessential Streisand Effect.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Went to check out the site (Canna.to) and it wouldn't load.
| Then I wondered what Upstream DNS I was using on my pi-hole...
| sure enough, Quad9.
|
| Then I went to load the site on my phone, and it tried to open
| 98 popups...
| abwizz wrote:
| operator probably realized the traffic surge and decided to
| monetize tru ranking up ads
| webmobdev wrote:
| > _... it tried to open 98 popups..._
|
| You need to install the uBlock Origin extension -
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-
| origin... (and if you know some web development, the uMatrix
| extension - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/addon/umatrix/ ). Best used with Firefox or
| Palemoon browser. I have it on my browser and saw _zero_ pop-
| ups.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| it _tried_ to open. it did not succeed.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| No popups on me on the desktop FF, but I have strict security
| enabled. No uBlock bullshit.
| [deleted]
| nullindividual wrote:
| I like Quad9 because it has ECS support, so unlike CF/Google, I
| don't get sent to some wild endpoint half way across the world.
|
| But I think it is time to move on.
| behringer wrote:
| You'll have to find an endpoint halfway across the world to
| find a dns within a laissez-faire jurisdiction
| figmert wrote:
| > ECS ... CF
|
| It seems CEO/Founder of CF says that they do not support
| ECS[0].
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702
| Macha wrote:
| Yes, that is why the section you're arguging with starts
| "because" and ends "unlike"
| fxtentacle wrote:
| They filed an appeal and are doing only the minimum required to
| stay out of prison. I don't think you'll find a much more
| liberal DNS service.
| zarzavat wrote:
| It would be nice if there was a large DNS service that was
| outside of US jurisdiction though.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| Quad9 is largely outside of US jurisdiction, the operator
| is Swiss and the lawsuit in question is in Germany. The US
| isn't the only country with problematic jurisprudence on
| intellectual property.
| selectodude wrote:
| They make music in Europe too and I imagine those people
| are just as unhappy with music piracy.
| NeckBeardPrince wrote:
| I heard the City of Atlantis is working on their own DNS
| provider.
| Obscurity4340 wrote:
| How profitable could it be if its already starting out
| underwater? [ba-dum-CHING]
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Tangentially related, I hate pirate websites that don't make any
| effort and don't include any samples of music they pirate. At
| least Israbox usually has links to album preview or a YT sample
| so you can decide whether it's worth downloading. I found that in
| this way you can discover interesting artists outside of your
| bubble (YT's algorithm used to work well in the past for this but
| now it's crap) _and_ then buy their recordings.
| minus7 wrote:
| The DNS records for that domain are hijacked on two German ISPs'
| resolvers I tested, yikes. Google and Cloudflare resolvers
| resolve it just fine however. canna.to. 0 IN
| CNAME notice.cuii.info. notice.cuii.info. 34953 IN A
| 167.233.14.14
| gogurt2000 wrote:
| To be clear, Canna doesn't host any of the pirated music, they
| just post links to file sharing sites that do. So this case is
| about DNS resolving the address of a site that links to other
| sites that host pirated content.
|
| By that logic, Quad9 should block Google, Facebook, Bing, reddit,
| twitter, and honestly every social media site because they link
| to download sites where pirated content is available.
| notquitehuman wrote:
| The sites listed all pay US politicians, judges, and regulators
| for political favors and leniency, Canna does not.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Quad9 is European and European courts have ruled against them
| in a similar case earlier.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I don't think the district court of Hamburg cares much about
| which US politicians these websites pay off.
| b59831 wrote:
| Europe does something but America is to blame.
|
| :eyeroll:
| thefurdrake wrote:
| It is important to read the article before commenting on it.
| gettodachoppa wrote:
| I feel like it's my moral duty to boycott Sony?
|
| Pirate their stuff too, if I ever feel like using something of
| theirs without giving them a cent. They're not human, it doesn't
| matter.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I can't really say I feel bad about pirating content from media
| empires.
| SllX wrote:
| So what are they? Aliens? Robots? A front for the dolphins?
| Sentient paperwork?
| catboybotnet wrote:
| Sony is a company, a corporation, a conglomerate, a machine
| to generate wealth for shareholders, whatever you wanna call
| it. Not a human. Decisions humans make on behalf of the
| company still lead to company != human.
| [deleted]
| SllX wrote:
| Sony Group Corporation is a kabushiki gaisha under Japanese
| law, which translates roughly to "stock corporation", which
| is a legal entity representing its owners (individuals and
| institutional investors, but if you follow the trails of
| paperwork all the way to the end, it's all individuals) in
| the marketplace. The arrangement is complex, but it is very
| much all people. Loads of them, as employees, management,
| executive management, owners and beneficiaries.
|
| Your point is taken that the entity is not literally human
| --sentient paperwork is a joke but it's actually not too
| far off--but your statement is still dehumanizing to actual
| people. The actions people take acting as representatives
| of the company are still human actions with human
| incentives behind them. I was hoping you would take the
| hint rather than the full explanation.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| > if you follow the trails of paperwork all the way to
| the end, it's all individuals
|
| And if you follow the textbooks all the way, you and I
| are just electron, proton, neutron, same in the stars and
| in piles of garbage. The intent behind the
| corporation/individual matters as much, and otherwise
| it's just as meaningless to say as a response to GP.
| SllX wrote:
| OP's original statement was that got to me was as
| follows:
|
| > They're not human, it doesn't matter.
|
| What this and your textbook example share in common is a
| lack of respect for the human factor. Sony Group
| Corporation may not be literally human, but to say
| "they're not human" is to dehumanize the people the Sony
| Group Corporation represents because that's what the
| actual function of a corporation is: to act as a legal
| front representing _people_. I don't care who anybody
| boycotts, but I think at a minimum, we can you know, not
| dehumanize people even if you dislike them.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| A company? Not entirely sure what you are getting at. You
| think Sony is a human?
| MrOwnPut wrote:
| Companies are made up of humans is what he's getting at.
| SllX wrote:
| Yep!
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Wait until Sony finds out about Youtube.
| jpeizer wrote:
| Most times these companies have automatic copyright triggers on
| YouTube and YouTube will most of the time keep the video up,
| not punish the uploader, but move a portion of the proceeds to
| the company as payment of use. It's happened to me a number of
| times when I use to make gameplay videos with non licensed
| music.
| eli wrote:
| Sony gets a whole lot more than $10k from youtube
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Obligatory rms quote:
|
| _> When record companies make a fuss about the danger of
| "piracy", they're not talking about violent attacks on shipping.
| What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an
| activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of
| cooperation. The term "piracy" is used by record companies to
| demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping,
| murder and theft._ [0]
|
| [0]: https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-26 23:02 UTC)