Germany's Copyright Clearing House now requires courts for website blocks • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany's Copyright Clearing House now requires courts for website blocks

#21

Post by 627467 » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 2:21 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #3

ACCount37 wrote: post #2

This shouldn't exist at all. But it probably beats it existing and being accountable to no one.

>This shouldn't exist at all If you think copyrights should exist at all, website blocks must exist as well, otherwise copyrights become unenforceable. Blocking straightforwardly copyright infringement sites (eg. a site that streams full episodes of TV shows) is a pretty logical consequence of a government enforcing its copyright laws.

If it's worth protecting, copyright holders will find a way to enforce it without needing a police state to do it. The truth is IP loves the contemporary cheapness of information distribution but doesn't want to pay for "undesirable" distribution. Do your own enforcement or don't distribute

Re: Germany's Copyright Clearing House now requires courts for website blocks

#22

Post by mcv » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 8:41 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #10

ACCount37 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If those are real world criminal activities with real world impacts, you should go after the perpetrators instead of playing the shell game with websites. You can't make violent criminals disappear by sweeping them under the rug.

Isn't that kind of like saying "it's fine to have hit-for-hire ads in newspaper classifieds[1], because if hit-for-hire is really a problem they can just go after the hitmen/clients?". I think most people wouldn't tolerate criminal activity being advertised in the open, even though they know forcing such activity to go underground wouldn't prevent the criminal activity from happening. [1] ignoring how you'd anonymous…

The issue here is: should the newspaper with hitman classifieds be banned from kiosks, or should you go after the actual owners and advertisers and put them in prison?

Hiding the crime from public view doesn't make the crime go away.

Re: Germany's Copyright Clearing House now requires courts for website blocks

#23

Post by nadermx » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 5:22 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #12

nadermx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't get it, is your claim that the rightsholders can sue in German courts and get an injunction if they want sites blocked, or that site blocks shouldn't be needed at all because suing people (but not blocking the sites) is an adequate remedy for infringement? Yet your own response seems to imply you do get it? >What if the domain registrar or hosting provider is in another country? If some Chinese company is in…

>Yet your own response seems to imply you do get it? So which one is it? >Correct. As the infrigment is happening in China, not in Germany. Just because you don't like the way a law works, doesn't mean you can suddenly claim your rights are being violated some where else. Yet, in most countries you can get an injunction (ie. a "block") for infringing goods produced abroad to be seized at the border. It's within the g…

> the sites being blocked seems like they're straightforwardly committing copyright infringement. It's not like youtube-dl is being taken down or whatever.

> Where did "criminal penalties and prison" come from?

https://torrentfreak.com/tag/yout/; YMMV

Re: Germany's Copyright Clearing House now requires courts for website blocks

#24

Post by jijijijij » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 9:04 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #20

jijijijij wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS resolution is absolutely not the same as advertisement (and murder not the same as copyright infringement.....). You only deal with DNS after forming the intention to go somewhere. DNS is meant to be impartial infrastructure. Since DNS blocking can be done completely opaquely (to most people anyway), it's more like gaslighting, really. I don't think most people want some entity to covertly define their reality. I…

>DNS resolution is absolutely not the same as advertisement (and murder not the same as copyright infringement.....). You only deal with DNS after forming the intention to go somewhere. DNS is meant to be impartial infrastructure. Since DNS blocking can be done completely opaquely (to most people anyway), it's more like gaslighting, really. I don't think most people want some entity to covertly define their reality.…

You are moving the goalpost. I was referencing the "murder ad" comparison. There is nothing about advertisement in DNS. Nobody is browsing DNS records. IP or SNI blocking are similarly intransparent.

You can block wherever illegal content is linked, or indexed, if you have to. Not on the infrastructure level, as that's distorting reality and is very annoying to fight.

But really, just pay a few more investigators and take down the offending service, if you got legal cause, instead of this sneaky, lazy shit, which is easily abused and sets a bad precedent.