Today marks a bright moment in the efforts to keep the internet a neutral and trusted resource for everyone.
Quad9 has received word from the courts in Dresden, Germany in the appeal of our case versus Sony Entertainment (Germany). The court has ruled in favor of Quad9, clearly and unequivocally.
Needless to say, we are elated at the news.
While [Quad9’s] case in Germany has been found in favor of Quad9, we have been served with another demand from commercial interests in an EU nation to block domain names, again based on alleged copyright violations. Italian legal representatives have presented us with a list of domains and a demand for blocking those domains. Now we must again determine the path to take forward fighting this legal battle, in another nation in which we are neither headquartered nor have any offices or corporate presence.
Unfortunately, this is not only your country which is wasting time on meaningless (and sometimes harmful) things. If big (!) business is involved, there is no such thing as a “country” imho. It’s just big corporations and the rest.
As they mention, it was an attempt to set a precedent. Better chance of getting this if you can beat a smaller firm, then they can go against the larger ones.
There is no system of precedence for rulings of lower courts in Germany, technically not even for higher courts (albeit there de facto is). That’s something you could find in the U.S. though.
The lower court fucked up and it got overruled. The only thing Sony could have done would have been to bring similar cases to the same lower level court again and again and hope they make the same wrong decision over and over. That’s about the closest thing to precedence they could have relied on. It probably would have worked for Sony though.
While formally there’s no precedence, court decisions still influence jurisprudence (I.e. the interpretation of the law), especially when supreme courts are involved.
In actual practice, an increasing degree of precedent is creeping into civil law jurisprudence, and is generally seen in many nations’ highest courts.[11] While the typical French-speaking supreme court decision is short, concise and devoid of explanation or justification, in Germanic Europe, the supreme courts can and do tend to write more verbose opinions, supported by legal reasoning.[11] A line of similar case decisions, while not precedent per se, constitute jurisprudence constante.
The last sentence also explains why Sony tried to do this in Germany: they were hoping to have a book sized legal thesis they could shop around in other European courts.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
For anyone wanting to amplify the Streisand effect, this is the site in question https://uu.canna.to/
Italian Blocking Demands: Following a Bad Example
Oh look, my country wasting time on meaningless things as always.
Unfortunately, this is not only your country which is wasting time on meaningless (and sometimes harmful) things. If big (!) business is involved, there is no such thing as a “country” imho. It’s just big corporations and the rest.
Fuck Sony by going against this small company compared to Cloudfare and Google.
As they mention, it was an attempt to set a precedent. Better chance of getting this if you can beat a smaller firm, then they can go against the larger ones.
There is no system of precedence for rulings of lower courts in Germany, technically not even for higher courts (albeit there de facto is). That’s something you could find in the U.S. though.
The lower court fucked up and it got overruled. The only thing Sony could have done would have been to bring similar cases to the same lower level court again and again and hope they make the same wrong decision over and over. That’s about the closest thing to precedence they could have relied on. It probably would have worked for Sony though.
While formally there’s no precedence, court decisions still influence jurisprudence (I.e. the interpretation of the law), especially when supreme courts are involved.
From the Wikipedia article on Civil Law:
The last sentence also explains why Sony tried to do this in Germany: they were hoping to have a book sized legal thesis they could shop around in other European courts.