Yes, that is a problem, but not the one I thought people complain about. Maybe the comments doing so stuck with me the most and I overestimate how many there were, but even rereading most comments with what the problem is according to you in mind, many do not seem to address this problem at all.
> Does a DNS-Server from a Non-profit needs something like content-ID from youtube? > > Or does a Non-profit DNS-provider needs hordes of lawyers just to check every single complaint in the future? > > Would you like that?
No. Quad9 was also provided with a deadline way too short to implement anything.
But after researching that bit a bit more, I changed my mind a bit about the process: I initially wrote that quad9 is in the wrong, I don't believe that anymore.
On one hand it would be more efficient to directly contact the providers that can do something about the infringement (youtube, DNS providers, whatever your prefered target would be), on the other hand it makes it easier to abuse. I still don't know of any good solution that's not just telling one side to go and shove it.
> Germany already has a law to block websites at ISP level, why bother a DNS provider with it?
My understanding was that this is also a DNS block and is frought with the same criticism (I may have accidentally projected that topic on the commenters here though, as the complaints seem to be the same). I'd gladly change that understanding :)
