Court orders for blocking of streaming services

Grant Taylor gtaylor at
Thu May 5 15:24:43 UTC 2022

On 5/5/22 6:07 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> Greetings -


Aside:  Any greeting more cheerful / up beat seems ... misplaced.

> Recently, a court issued a troubling set of rulings in a default decision
> against "Israel.TV" and some other sites.

How can someone go to court with "unknown" information like in exhibit 
A?  This seems insultingly incomplete like someone simply didn't want to 
do their homework.


I take umbrage at the fact that many of the domain names aren't actually 
domain names and instead are host names or URLs which are decidedly 
different than a domain name.

If you want someone else to do work on your behalf then you should have 
the decency and respect to give them /directly/ actionable and 
/accurate/ data.

> This expansive clause basically demands that ISP's implement a
> DNS override in recursers, which may be dubiously effective given
> things such as DNSSEC and DNS-over-HTTPS complications.  This is
> not an insignificant amount of work to implement, and since they
> have not limited the list to big players, that means us small guys
> would need to do this too.

As others have suggested, I would run this past in-house / retained 
lawyers before doing anything more than sending an email about it.

> Perhaps more worryingly is the clause "by any technological means
> available," which seems like it could be opening the door to
> mandatory DPI filtering of port 53 traffic, an expensive and dicey
> proposition, or filtering at the CPE for those who run dnsmasq on
> busybox based CPE, etc., etc.

"diverted by the ISPs DNS servers" seems to be a very small subset of 
"by any technological means".

I'm waiting for the day that the plaintiff looses control of the landing 
page to the original defendants and uses the court order -- such as it 
is(n't) -- against the plaintiff.  --  "Hey, you failed to renew the 
domain for your landing page, so we did.  Now we are using your own 
ruling against you.  Either we get the traffic or your own landing page 
is filtered as a (Newly-Detected Website)."

> This seems to be transferring the expense of complying to third
> parties who had nothing to do with the pirate sites.

I feel like "undue burden" is going to come into play here.

> And how is this practical when this scales to hundreds or thousands
> of such rulings?

As it is, it won't.

> Is anybody here considering recovering compliance costs from the
> plaintiffs?


Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4017 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list