In order to be using any of these DNS providers you would have already needed to switch away from your ISP’s default DNS. This must be targeting the people who knew how to change their DNS servers but somehow forgot.
Starting with a pool of all users who use alternative DNS for any reason, users of pirate sites – especially sites broadcasting the matches in question – were isolated from the rest. Users of both VPNs and third-party DNS were further excluded from the group since DNS blocking is ineffective against VPNs.
Proust found that the number of users likely to be affected by DNS blocking at Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco, amounts to 0.084% of the total population of French Internet users. Citing a recent survey, which found that only 2% of those who face blocks simply give up and don’t find other means of circumvention, he reached an interesting conclusion.
“2% of 0.084% is 0.00168% of Internet users! In absolute terms, that would represent a small group of around 800 people across France!”
I wonder how much the court case cost, and if those costs are in anyway likely to be recouped even if all 800 of those convert to a subscription.
Tbh it seems to me like the only thing they’re targeting with this are media company lawyers that could try to argue that they’re “enabling piracy” by resolving domains of known piracy resources.
This particular step, that this article is about, is targeting people who knew enough to switch from their ISP’s DNS resolver to one of these ISP-agnostic DNS providers. So they’re targeting the people who do, and probably not going to be particularly effective at it.
So they’ll just change their DNS server again? What will this achieve?
Nothing for people who know what DNS is. They’re targeting the people who don’t.
In order to be using any of these DNS providers you would have already needed to switch away from your ISP’s default DNS. This must be targeting the people who knew how to change their DNS servers but somehow forgot.
I wonder how much the court case cost, and if those costs are in anyway likely to be recouped even if all 800 of those convert to a subscription.
Tbh it seems to me like the only thing they’re targeting with this are media company lawyers that could try to argue that they’re “enabling piracy” by resolving domains of known piracy resources.
They already got the ISP DNS resolvers.
This particular step, that this article is about, is targeting people who knew enough to switch from their ISP’s DNS resolver to one of these ISP-agnostic DNS providers. So they’re targeting the people who do, and probably not going to be particularly effective at it.