This is a strange case in my opinion. Quad9 and other open DNS servers such as CloudFlare, AddGuard, CleanBrowsing, Comodo, Google, OpenDNS, UltraDNS, Dyn, Yandex, HE.net and other open recursive servers are additive. They are not authoritative for the offending domain, nor are they promoting it. Just because some of these servers happen to filter malicious sites does not mean their role or legal responsibility is to filter sites that break copyright laws. This is the wrong target and sets a bad precedent in my opinion. I am not a lawyer. The right approach would be to have the domain seized and removed from the root servers. There is already a process in place for this as I am sure Sony is aware.
I could see some people equating Quad9 to a CDN but that is not the same. CDN's require the offender to set up an account and manually point the CDN to their site after accepting an acceptable use policy. An open DNS server requires no setup by the offender and no AUP. Anyone can point their client to the open DNS servers and request any domain.
I could see some people equating Quad9 to a CDN but that is not the same. CDN's require the offender to set up an account and manually point the CDN to their site after accepting an acceptable use policy. An open DNS server requires no setup by the offender and no AUP. Anyone can point their client to the open DNS servers and request any domain.