Summary by Llama 3.2 with my edits:
Background:
- Quad9, a non-profit DNS resolver organization, has been forced to block piracy DNS queries by French authorities as part of an effort to block piracy-related content from Canal+.
- The company argues that its role is similar to a map publisher, not a transmitter or intermediary, and therefore should not be subject to the same regulations.
Arguments:
- Quad9 claims that blocking their DNS services in France will have far-reaching consequences, including affecting consumers worldwide who use their service globally.
- They argue that they cannot precisely determine the location of their users due to privacy concerns, making it impossible for them to target only French users with blocked content.
- The company seeks to maintain a global list of blocked sites as a condition of compliance with French law.
Consequences:
- Cisco has discontinued its OpenDNS service in France altogether in response to the pressure from Canal+.
- Quad9’s implementation of the blocking measures will affect all customers globally, not just those in France.
Appeal and Funding:
- Quad9 is determined to fight against “DNS censorship” and has requested public support to fund their appeal process.
- The company argues that DNS providers should be seen as neutral location services, not intermediaries under EU law.
Potential Outcomes:
- If the appeals court agrees with the interpretation of French Sports Code, it could set a significant precedent for future cases involving DNS blocking and copyright infringement.
- Alternatively, if the court disagrees, it may lead to changes in how DNS providers are regulated in France, potentially limiting their ability to block piracy-related content.
Broader Implications:
- The outcome of this case will have implications not only for Quad9 but also for other DNS providers and online services worldwide, as they navigate similar regulatory challenges.
If this case succeeds and becomes the norm, this will pave the road to enforcing hardware DPI filtering as the next stage of “defending copyright”.
This is a kind of a follow up to the last years’ Quad9 vs Sony Music case.