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.
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
> 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.
I tried to make use of a new site to know about but I can't even figure out why anyone would use this instead of just grabbing songs off of youtube with youtube-dl or Newpipe. This feels like music piracy circa right before Napster.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is it too radical to suggest that all DNS providers block all of a company's websites whenever they lobby for things like this? Kind of like a blacklist of free speech offenders.
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.