💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29398455 captured on 2021-11-30 at 20:18:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

German Court Rules Against Internet Security Non-Profit Quad9

Author: pgl

Score: 90

Comments: 22

Date: 2021-11-30 22:48:57

Web Link

________________________________________________________________________________

dane-pgp wrote at 2021-12-01 00:14:26:

There is no component of the claimed copyright infringement that Quad9 participates indirectly, nor is there any infringing data on Quad9’s servers, nor does Quad9 have any business relationship with the site in question.

We're approaching a situation where even electricity providers, not to mention OS and browser providers, can be forced to do the bidding copyright holders, to the detriment of everyone else.

hermitdev wrote at 2021-12-01 00:24:30:

I feal like if they lose their appeal and are forced to remove the requested entries, they should additionally remove all entries for Sony as well. I know this is just being spiteful and runs counter to their mission, but it feels fitting.

sp332 wrote at 2021-12-01 01:40:46:

Yeah wasn't there a similar case recently with Cloudflare that they actually won? I was kinda surprised actually, I thought it would end up like this case. But the inconsistency is weird.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/cloudflare-doesn...

zucker42 wrote at 2021-12-01 01:43:58:

Quad9 is a Swiss non-profit being sued in German court. It's no surprise that German courts might rule differently than U.S. courts.

nicce wrote at 2021-12-01 00:20:04:

When you think about it, isn’t it indeed identical situation to ask browser(s) to block domains in this matter? Just more effective to ask ISP (all in once)

Terry_Roll wrote at 2021-12-01 01:37:11:

This is why SpaceX's StarLink will be interesting because I cant see how some court bailiff can enforce actions on satellites, and what one country bans, another will disagree with.

I can see Govt's in particular NSA, GCHQ, aka 5 eyes, 7 eyes etc losing alot of control over the internet in the foreseeable future.

er4hn wrote at 2021-12-01 01:41:21:

Starlink satalites know where they are serving, geographically. Wouldn't they just comply with local laws or risk having their ability to do business in that region disrupted?

timcosta wrote at 2021-12-01 00:32:19:

so does this mean that (for example) the olympics can require quad9 to stop resolving youtube because someone uploads a video to youtube that is a copyright infringement? what stops a malicious actor from claiming copyright infringement and causing sites like youtube, netflix, and hulu to be taken offline entirely while it's worked out?

dane-pgp wrote at 2021-12-01 00:57:38:

Presumably YouTube would be able to intervene to convince the court that this is a disproportionate response, given that YouTube already has a system in place for copyright holders to request individual videos to be taken down. Whether this defence against collateral damage is, on balance, good for web users is a more complicated strategic question.

endofreach wrote at 2021-12-01 01:00:55:

I am eager to read the Urteil.

Especially considering that this kind of liability was the norm in germany, at least always questioned.

Then, in 2017 there was a law to „fix“ that.

And now there is a ruling contradicting the idea of the law (§ 8 Telemediengesetz) as it seems.

Main problem with german law is that the courts have too much freedom because they know, the lawmakers produce low quality laws nowadays.

Just compare any old law with any of the newer ones…

Germany is losing it, sadly.

rndgermandude wrote at 2021-12-01 01:39:10:

There isn't an "Urteil" yet, this is about an injunction i.e. Einstweilige Verfügung, interim injunction 310 O 99/21 specifically. The Hauptprozess hasn't even started if I read this correctly.

dathinab wrote at 2021-12-01 01:05:28:

I might be misremembering but I feel like the Hamburg Regional Court did pop up multiple times because of legally questionable decisions in recent years.

Is that just me?

rndgermandude wrote at 2021-12-01 01:43:34:

No, the Hamburg court is well known for playing fast and loose with everything copyright or everything personal rights. They create jaw dropping rulings all the time, and quite often are reversed in part or fully by a higher court.

The Oberlandesgericht Hamburg was particular known for a Richter with the name Buske. He was well know for his "interesting" rulings. It went so far that IP/copyright/personal rights/media lawyers coined the term "Buskeismus" (Buskeism). He is retired since about a year, but his spirit seems to still live on especially in Hamburg's courts.

sabjut wrote at 2021-12-01 01:12:50:

Can't they just escalate the case to a higher (and more competent) instance?

dathinab wrote at 2021-12-01 01:48:33:

They did.

But it costs time, money and should not be necessary.

dtx1 wrote at 2021-12-01 00:01:01:

This has been another INSANE ruling by the courts in Hamburg. They are well known to be little more than industry stooges and I can't count how many insane of their insane rulings have been overruled by higher courts.

throw0101a wrote at 2021-12-01 00:54:57:

> courts in Hamburg.

So they're like the East District of Texas of the EU?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_f...

https://www.logikcull.com/blog/the-supreme-court-frees-paten...

fnord77 wrote at 2021-12-01 01:49:34:

whataboutism

max-m wrote at 2021-12-01 00:37:27:

Some call it the LG Humbug for a reason. :)

londons_explore wrote at 2021-12-01 00:15:55:

Is there any "punishment" for a judge whos' ruling is overturned by a higher court?

It would seem to me that the definition of a good judge is one who always predicts how a higher court would act, and acts the same.

dane-pgp wrote at 2021-12-01 00:26:31:

I'm also surprised there isn't a stronger protection against litigants effectively choosing their judges. I remember reading about a system that Bulgaria(?) implemented for randomly assigning cases to judges, to avoid corruption, and how it had a flaw that let administrators make multiple requests to the system for the same case, until they got the judge they wanted.

dtx1 wrote at 2021-12-01 00:22:04:

A sternly worded letter at the utmost but german judges are free to judge how they see fit and aren't bound by things like existing caselaw, any the law as they interpret it. And the LG Hamburg simply interprets the law in the worst way possible for the free internet.

sebow wrote at 2021-12-01 00:31:41:

This is why i don't buy the "germany is big on privacy" rhetoric.Not having google street view doesn't mean you have "privacy". Not to mention known links between BND and US agencies, de facto acting as a proxy for them in Europe.

Some of the people may be more sympathetic towards privacy-first tools than the european average, but that doesn't mean the government/leadership is.

Quad9 was the most interesting free DNS service out there, better than google/CF imo.And i'm not saying this as an "anti-german" talking-point,but there are actually very few countries were privacy was pushed as a principle in institutions, see Nordic countries or even to an extreme: CH(where if i recall correctly you cannot record someone even in public w/o their permission). However this smells like something that is not germany-specific but colluded across countries & big corporations: keep cracking down on piracy(even though it's basically a fact that these P2P methods of sharing copyrighted content actually made Sony/Hollywood/etc more money than not)