39C3: Criticism of CUII and network blocks in Germany

At 39C3, the talk "CUII: How corporations secretly block websites in Germany" shed light on a still largely opaque mechanism of internet regulation in Germany. Northernside and Lina demonstrated how websites are blocked via the Clearingstelle Urheberrecht im Internet (CUII) in cooperation with rights holders and internet providers – mostly voluntarily, often without a court order, and largely out of public view. They themselves operate the website „CUII Liste“, which is a comprehensive list of websites blocked by the CUII in Germany.

About the CUII

Among the CUII's rights holders are the film and music industries (e.g., GEMA, film studios) and the football industry (DFL, Sky), while participating internet providers, according to their own statements, cover around 85 percent of German internet connections. Through the CUII, rights holders can submit blocking requests for websites allegedly infringing copyright. These are reviewed internally and then forwarded to the participating providers, who usually block the sites via DNS blocking. The Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) was involved for a time but emphasized that it does not decide on the legality of the content. Critics complain that this is an opaque, privatized procedure without clear legal control.

The publication of internal blocking lists attracted particular attention following a misconfiguration at a provider. This revealed that numerous domains were blocked even though the disputed content had not been available for years in some cases. According to critics, analyses showed significant deficiencies in monitoring: a considerable portion of the blocks were outdated or unjustified. Furthermore, some providers changed their blocking mechanisms, making it impossible for users to tell whether a site was specifically blocked or simply unreachable. This hinders transparency and crowdsourcing projects that aim to document blocking measures.

With the "Kodex 2.0" presented in 2024, the CUII announced that it would rely more on court rulings in the future. According to Lina, the whole thing seems like a PR stunt. "It appears that internet providers often simply don't show up in court. Then there's a so-called 'default judgment,' meaning the judge doesn't examine the matter in depth. And the CUII can now present this one ruling, and thus all other internet providers in the CUII voluntarily block the site," says Northernside. How exactly this happens is very difficult to say, and unfortunately, there isn't much information from the CUII. "We had to piece together the information from IFG requests [IFG: Freedom of Information Act, editor's note] and requests to courts. We also know that the Bundesnetzagentur itself has requested contradictory ('proper') judgments, not default judgments."

Lina adds: "You can see here how billion-dollar companies are getting internet providers to quietly enforce their self-justice." It shows that current copyright laws ultimately only help gigantic corporations, whereas ordinary people don't have such options. "Technically, this is also very concerning: Internet providers have to examine all requests to be able to manipulate the responses. And they do all this 'voluntarily' with their customers because the corporations, with their vast wealth and our copyright laws, simply have the power."

(mack)