...I'm dumbfounded at the idea of using real-life courts to enforce real-life sporting events' streaming rights by getting rapid injunctions against DNS providers as the means of striking at a multiply-redundant head of a piracy hydra when DNS TTLs are often longer than the actual sporting event being infringed upon.

...it's like going after the independent printshop who printed your local telephone directory book to redact known ne'er-do-wells from the directory because a local weed drug deal took place 5 minutes ago but the next telephone directory print isn't scheduled for another 6 months.

also, doesn't DNSSEC prevent this anyway?

> I'm dumbfounded at the idea of using real-life courts to enforce real-life sporting events' streaming rights by getting rapid injunctions against DNS providers

It could always be worse, like here in Spain, where they got one court order a few years back, and just arbitrarily block half the internet (i.e. all of Cloudflare) whenever the futbol is on...

Ah is that what's happening? I thought Cloudflare hated me. Thanks, I will check that next time it happens.

I have zero awareness of when futbol is on because I hate sports. So I didn't correlate it.

You may wish to bookmark https://hayahora.futbol/

This is hilarious, thanks for sharing. I had no idea.

Some countries turn the internet off when there's a big protest against the government. Others turn the internet off when the football is on telly.

To be fair, football hooligans do look like violent protestors. Except, the only thing they seem to be protesting is their brains.

> ...I'm dumbfounded at the idea of using real-life courts to enforce real-life sporting events' streaming rights by getting rapid injunctions against DNS providers as the means of striking at a multiply-redundant head of a piracy hydra when DNS TTLs are often longer than the actual sporting event being infringed upon.

There's a youtuber who breaks down samples in songs by hip hop artists, and he gets striked or all his earnings taken by someone who stalks his videos, he used to cut samples to below 15 seconds, and still gets striked. You can't even defend yourself, and arguably he is within FAIR USE of the content.

Someone, somewhere is going out of their way to strike their videos. It's ridiculous, do they strike news channels when copyrighted music plays in the background without their control too?

That seems much more sensible than what is being discussed. Sure fair use offers some protections, but youtube the platform is not required to protect individual youtuber revenues for fair use. Fair use effectivly entails an exception to the normal rules, and as such, requires actual judgement on a case by case basis instead of being something that can be scaled like content id. If you actually got sued, you could use Fair Use as a defense in court, and the judge would decide if you are right or not. In the case you are discussing, no-one got sued because youtube handled it without a court, so fair use never really comes into play.

What is being discussed would be more like if a court tried to get Google to take down individual spam bot youtube accounts that had popped up that same morning. Its rediculous because the legal system doesn't move that fast (nor does DNS), so things that require that level of heavy-handedness are typically much slower processes taking months or years.

> do they strike news channels when copyrighted music plays in the background without their control too?

Yes, they do. In Brazil, to avoid some news reports about stores selling contraband items, the store owners started playing Disney songs in the background, meaning they weren't able to publish the videos or broadcast them.

Maybe I haven't considered this enough but couldn't they just remove the audio and put subtitles up with what was said? Just preface this segment segment with the information that the owners of the store are playing copyrighted Disney music in an attempt to prevent them from recording them. Maybe have a voiceover explaining the situation if dead air is unacceptable for some reason.

The general public didn’t even make it through this comment, unfortunately.

Things are pretty dire, attention-wise.

Hopefully someone has pointed this youtuber at Rick Beato / Legal Eagle's initiative in this direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HxQkk0PSY

That's not real life courts, that's an unaccountable corporation who rightly considers you irrelevant

Sometimes when I come up with analogies they miss the mark. Yours was on point.

> also, doesn't DNSSEC prevent this anyway?

As per usual, the answer is no. DNSSEC prevents resolver cache poisoning for trusted resolvers which validate DNSSEC. That is literally it. It provides no security against the vast majority of attacks against DNS.

Also limited protection against MitM upstream of the resolver, spoofing is prevented but denial of service is still possible.

So much this.

It's like prosecuting the asphalt guys who paved the road the bank robbers used

In the meanwhile AI companies neglect copyright infringement at industrial scale