also demands that the providers sign a testimony,with which they commit themselves to ensure full blockage under a contractual penalty of 100.000 euro if any of their customers can still reach the targeted site after July 25th.... In the Pennsylvania child pornography case , slightly reminiscent of this one, new legislation allowed the government to aks access providers to block sites, using DNS poisoning amongst others. In that case there was a law to challenge, constitutional restraints to invoke, a court to review the pressure put on the public (government) - private (users) relationship. While laws may be applicable in the German case, users could "constitutionally" loose out if private demands are enforced by private parties. A judicial review is appropriate here, if for one thing, to test how far decisions to block the information flow can be pushed and taken within the private realm. Even if there's arguably illegal activity involved. Because there always is....arguably. [links, emphasis in original] "Unjust enrichment"? Where did that sneak in? It's not anywhere in any of the opinions! So why are we considering first-year contract law? Well, the most rigorous answer is "we're not: we're considering the relationship of potential remedy to liability, and that relationship is behind virtually all of the common law." For, in the end, that is what the evidence in Grokster points toward: Use of copyright law to prevent unjust enrichment achieved through violation of an exclusive right. Absent the economic factor, it's a lot harder (not impossible, merely