Project Gutenberg blocks access from Germany(cand.pglaf.org)
cand.pglaf.org
Project Gutenberg blocks access from Germany
https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/index.html
528 comments
[deleted]
The link addresses just that:
> The decision to acceed to the German Court's order to make items inaccessible from Germany is intended to be a temporary appeasement, while the appeal occurs - this is because the German appeal Court will likely look disfavorably on PGLAF if it shows contempt for the German Court.
> The decision to acceed to the German Court's order to make items inaccessible from Germany is intended to be a temporary appeasement, while the appeal occurs - this is because the German appeal Court will likely look disfavorably on PGLAF if it shows contempt for the German Court.
Well, no crap sherlock
I don't see why Project Gutenberg thinks it isn't subject to German law. And yes, it sucks and it is against the spirit of the internet.
But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website.
I don't see why Project Gutenberg thinks it isn't subject to German law. And yes, it sucks and it is against the spirit of the internet.
But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website.
> But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website.
Sued by whom? Afaik gutenberg.org is registered in California, no German jurisdiction, the cease&desist orders usually used to shut something like this down don't apply here.
Same deal with ISPs: Afaik there's no legal framework to support anything like that, it's for exactly that reason why law firms like Waldorf and Frommer uses cease&desist letters to pretty much blackmail people into stopping the "distribution", it's all based on civil action.
Sued by whom? Afaik gutenberg.org is registered in California, no German jurisdiction, the cease&desist orders usually used to shut something like this down don't apply here.
Same deal with ISPs: Afaik there's no legal framework to support anything like that, it's for exactly that reason why law firms like Waldorf and Frommer uses cease&desist letters to pretty much blackmail people into stopping the "distribution", it's all based on civil action.
> Afaik there's no legal framework to support anything like that,
You might be careful with that assertion. As recently as Feb. 1st 2018 (so a month ago), Vodafone was compelled to block access to kinox.to in a preliminary injunction (1). The EUGH decided in 2014 that blocking pages is at least an option (2). This is contradictory to the EU e-commerce regulations, so the legality is somewhat murky at the moment, but it’s not definitely off the table.
(1) https://netzpolitik.org/2018/netzsperren-vodafone-muss-kinox...
(2) Telekabel Wien vs. Constantin Film http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
You might be careful with that assertion. As recently as Feb. 1st 2018 (so a month ago), Vodafone was compelled to block access to kinox.to in a preliminary injunction (1). The EUGH decided in 2014 that blocking pages is at least an option (2). This is contradictory to the EU e-commerce regulations, so the legality is somewhat murky at the moment, but it’s not definitely off the table.
(1) https://netzpolitik.org/2018/netzsperren-vodafone-muss-kinox...
(2) Telekabel Wien vs. Constantin Film http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
I missed that, somewhat recent, development thank you for pointing this out.
Still, as you said, this is legally murky and I wouldn't be too surprised if this turns out to be overturned again by a higher court. Some German courts have a reputation for quickly and easily siding with copyright claimants, just to have it overturned later by a higher instance.
It's still really shitty that stuff like this keeps on happening and even when these claims turn out to be straight up scams (like that whole Redtube mess [0]) it has barely any real consequences in terms of laws being changed.
[0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2015.1...
It's still really shitty that stuff like this keeps on happening and even when these claims turn out to be straight up scams (like that whole Redtube mess [0]) it has barely any real consequences in terms of laws being changed.
[0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2015.1...
The EUGH decision is fairly recent and it’s about as far up as possible. So I wouldn’t hold my breath unless the EU doubles down on net neutrality.
The EUGH link does not work, but the Vodafone case was a decision by a Munich court, which could still be overturned if somebody bothered going all the way up to the BVerfG.
Odd, link works for me. In case you want to search for it, it’s lawsuit C‑314/12, the document identifier seems to be ECLI:EU:C:2014:192
Or you can follow the link in the first article to https://netzpolitik.org/2014/eugh-legt-zensur-grundlagen-net... which has a link to the court decision (grep for “Das Urteil”)
Or you can follow the link in the first article to https://netzpolitik.org/2014/eugh-legt-zensur-grundlagen-net... which has a link to the court decision (grep for “Das Urteil”)
I'm getting a pretty weird CVRIA specific 404 (Page does not exist), in English and French when trying to access the link. Googling for "Telekabel Wien vs. Constantin Film" gives the same top result, but going through there also just gives me the same 404.
Weird stuff going on at CVRIA?
Weird stuff going on at CVRIA?
Rights owners in Germany would request the blocking to the Justice system, due to theirs rights being violated
If someone hosts a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down
If someone hosts a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down
The legalities behind this are mostly based on civil law and not as straight as some people here seem to think because German ISPs to have a certain level of protection, I can't remember the exact name of said legality (just imagine yet another very long German word, people familiar with Freifunker-Netz probably know this better), but it's pretty much a constant back and forth struggle.
> a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-... is what happens. Being on the 301 report watch lists can have pretty nasty consequences in trade relations with the US.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-... is what happens. Being on the 301 report watch lists can have pretty nasty consequences in trade relations with the US.
> I don't see why Project Gutenberg thinks it isn't subject to German law.
For the same reason that it's not subject to North Korean law, or Saudi law, or the laws of any tin pot dictatorship: It's not located there.
For the same reason that it's not subject to North Korean law, or Saudi law, or the laws of any tin pot dictatorship: It's not located there.
That’s just not how it works by any standard. Target users in a country, be subject to laws in that country. Basically all courts will assume jurisdiction by that rule. See for example the Mega case: Kim dotcom was a NZ resident, he was still prosecuted in the US.
The critical question is enforcement: no US law enforcement would carry out a North Korean court order. Things get problematic if the is a viable enforcement route: you make profits in a country, you have a subsidiary in that country, you want to travel to that country or you have employees in that country that might have to take the fall for you. What do you think why Twitter and Facebook and Apple all mostly conform to Chinese Law with Apple even moving the chinese iCloud key to China?
Project Gutenberg seems to have volunteers in Germany that could theoretically be personally targeted with a lawsuit for aiding copyright infringement. Now what? Claim US jurisdiction, lean back and wait? Expose them to that (unlikely) scenario? I, as a rights holder, if I’d really wanted to push this, would at least threaten to go down that route. Even if it’s later struck down, the hassle for the volunteers would be massive.
The critical question is enforcement: no US law enforcement would carry out a North Korean court order. Things get problematic if the is a viable enforcement route: you make profits in a country, you have a subsidiary in that country, you want to travel to that country or you have employees in that country that might have to take the fall for you. What do you think why Twitter and Facebook and Apple all mostly conform to Chinese Law with Apple even moving the chinese iCloud key to China?
Project Gutenberg seems to have volunteers in Germany that could theoretically be personally targeted with a lawsuit for aiding copyright infringement. Now what? Claim US jurisdiction, lean back and wait? Expose them to that (unlikely) scenario? I, as a rights holder, if I’d really wanted to push this, would at least threaten to go down that route. Even if it’s later struck down, the hassle for the volunteers would be massive.
Does project Gutenberg identify their German based volunteers? Are they going to respond to a German order to identify them, assuming they're not responding to a German order to suppress books in the first place?
Up until now it was a no-brainer to identify with project Gutenberg, so the volunteers might have exposed themselves already. It probably still is, since the project complied with the court order. It’s mentioned in the plaintiffs argument which at least raises the possibility. So they might or might not be identifiable, but that question only matters for enforcement, not for the question of jurisdiction.
First, I did not say they are not subject to German law.
I said that if they argue that Copyright status in another country is irrelevant [1], that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries [2], that any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system and that the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction [4], the only logical consequence would have been to just ignore a lawsuit filed in Germany.
Why not wait and see if the publisher brings the case to a US court or follows the WIPO process? What harm could it do?
[1] Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.
[2] International treaties explicitly and unambiguously support PGLAF's legal guidance as described above: that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries.
[3] any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system
[3] Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books [..]
[4] The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined.
I said that if they argue that Copyright status in another country is irrelevant [1], that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries [2], that any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system and that the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction [4], the only logical consequence would have been to just ignore a lawsuit filed in Germany.
Why not wait and see if the publisher brings the case to a US court or follows the WIPO process? What harm could it do?
[1] Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.
[2] International treaties explicitly and unambiguously support PGLAF's legal guidance as described above: that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries.
[3] any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system
[3] Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books [..]
[4] The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined.
Ah that's a better explanation
Let's think of something different: I print one of those books and send it to Germany. I assume the person receiving the book could be subject to prosecution. But if the company that did that is also present in Germany (offers services in Germany) then I suspect they would be held responsible as well.
Let's think of something different: I print one of those books and send it to Germany. I assume the person receiving the book could be subject to prosecution. But if the company that did that is also present in Germany (offers services in Germany) then I suspect they would be held responsible as well.
The whole paragraph reads:
> The decision to acceed to the German Court's order to make items inaccessible from Germany is intended to be a temporary appeasement, while the appeal occurs - this is because the German appeal Court will likely look disfavorably on PGLAF if it shows contempt for the German Court. Ultimately, PGLAF seeks to establish that any complaints about copyright must be brought either to the US Courts (where PGLAF operates) or WIPO processes (as guided by international treaties).
And continues:
> Q: Is there anything that can be done about the situation?
> A: Project Gutenberg is fighting for an appeal. Ideas about how to appeal the case in German, and any possible legal actions in the US, are welcome. You can reach Dr. Newby by email, gbnewby AT pglaf.org.
It says they have no idea how to appeal the case in Germany and the paragraph above basically says they have no real intention anyway because they want to bring the case either to an US Court or to the WIPO.
I am highly sympathetic with the PGLAF but their argumentation is completely incongruent. Either they accept the jurisdiction of the German court, then they should appeal in Germany and the appeasement makes sense, or they don't, then they should just ignore it completely.
> The decision to acceed to the German Court's order to make items inaccessible from Germany is intended to be a temporary appeasement, while the appeal occurs - this is because the German appeal Court will likely look disfavorably on PGLAF if it shows contempt for the German Court. Ultimately, PGLAF seeks to establish that any complaints about copyright must be brought either to the US Courts (where PGLAF operates) or WIPO processes (as guided by international treaties).
And continues:
> Q: Is there anything that can be done about the situation?
> A: Project Gutenberg is fighting for an appeal. Ideas about how to appeal the case in German, and any possible legal actions in the US, are welcome. You can reach Dr. Newby by email, gbnewby AT pglaf.org.
It says they have no idea how to appeal the case in Germany and the paragraph above basically says they have no real intention anyway because they want to bring the case either to an US Court or to the WIPO.
I am highly sympathetic with the PGLAF but their argumentation is completely incongruent. Either they accept the jurisdiction of the German court, then they should appeal in Germany and the appeasement makes sense, or they don't, then they should just ignore it completely.
PGLAF thinks that the German court is wrong. However, they would prefer to not have German court decision - even if they believe it is wrong - against them to be in power, since international treaties mean it can have consequences beyond Germany. Thus, they are fighting it in German court. In order to raise chances of winning, they choose not to openly flaunt German court decision - which they can always do later if it turns out resolving it within German justice system is a no go. It is a common thing to do - you can disagree with some decision being legal and still temporary abide by it in order to work within the judicial system and not put yourself outside it.
> PGLAF thinks that the German court is wrong.
They made that point in their article and they also made clear that this is not just their opinion but also that of their legal teams in the US and Germany.
> However, they would prefer to not have German court decision - even if they believe it is wrong - against them to be in power, since international treaties mean it can have consequences beyond Germany.
And that is my point. The best way to not have a German court decision would have been not to ask for one. They could have easily avoided the whole situation if they just ignored the lawsuit brought against them in Germany.
> Thus, they are fighting it in German court.
They are fighting in a German court, even if they could have avoided it, because they would prefer not to have a German court decision? That doesn't make any sense.
> In order to raise chances of winning, they choose not to openly flaunt German court decision
The way to avoid embarrassment on all sides would have been to ignore the lawsuit and point the publisher to the proper ways to handles this, namely either US court or WIPO. Being ignored by a US organization wouldn't have been a big deal neither for the German court nor the publishers, this happens all the time. I appreciate PGLAF highly, but what they did here just caused unnecessary drama.
> - which they can always do later if it turns out resolving it within German justice system is a no go.
Which would be the ultimate embarrassment for the German justice system, don't you think?
> It is a common thing to do - you can disagree with some decision being legal and still temporary abide by it in order to work within the judicial system and not put yourself outside it.
I agree with that, I just think that in this case there was no need for it. PGLAF could have avoided the situation without consequences.
They made that point in their article and they also made clear that this is not just their opinion but also that of their legal teams in the US and Germany.
> However, they would prefer to not have German court decision - even if they believe it is wrong - against them to be in power, since international treaties mean it can have consequences beyond Germany.
And that is my point. The best way to not have a German court decision would have been not to ask for one. They could have easily avoided the whole situation if they just ignored the lawsuit brought against them in Germany.
> Thus, they are fighting it in German court.
They are fighting in a German court, even if they could have avoided it, because they would prefer not to have a German court decision? That doesn't make any sense.
> In order to raise chances of winning, they choose not to openly flaunt German court decision
The way to avoid embarrassment on all sides would have been to ignore the lawsuit and point the publisher to the proper ways to handles this, namely either US court or WIPO. Being ignored by a US organization wouldn't have been a big deal neither for the German court nor the publishers, this happens all the time. I appreciate PGLAF highly, but what they did here just caused unnecessary drama.
> - which they can always do later if it turns out resolving it within German justice system is a no go.
Which would be the ultimate embarrassment for the German justice system, don't you think?
> It is a common thing to do - you can disagree with some decision being legal and still temporary abide by it in order to work within the judicial system and not put yourself outside it.
I agree with that, I just think that in this case there was no need for it. PGLAF could have avoided the situation without consequences.
> The way to avoid embarrassment on all sides would have been to ignore the lawsuit and point the publisher to the proper ways to handles this, namely either US court or WIPO.
They did. See this part of the FAQ:
PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined.
Alternatively, international treaties - notably the Berne Convention and related treaties - provide mediation processes through the World Intellectual Property Organization. PGLAF offered to undergo this mediation process, and Plaintiff declined.
They did. See this part of the FAQ:
PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined.
Alternatively, international treaties - notably the Berne Convention and related treaties - provide mediation processes through the World Intellectual Property Organization. PGLAF offered to undergo this mediation process, and Plaintiff declined.
> The best way to not have a German court decision would have been not to ask for one.
PGLAF didn't.
> They could have easily avoided the whole situation if they just ignored the lawsuit brought against them in Germany.
That would not have avoided having court decision - that would just lead to the decision be by default, without their argument even being heard and without the court exposing the flimsy base on which the decision stands. They'd have lost not because the argument is bad but because they didn't show up. And you can't appeal not showing up.
> They are fighting in a German court, even if they could have avoided it, because they would prefer not to have a German court decision? That doesn't make any sense.
I am not sure what gives you trouble here. Imagine you are wrongfully arrested. You would then probably go to court and demand your being released, and compensated, even if you would prefer - and would vigorously claim - that the entire arrest is unlawful and you shouldn't even be here at the first place. Same here.
> The way to avoid embarrassment on all sides would have been to ignore the lawsuit
Ignoring court decisions rarely works that well, especially in modern globalized world.
PGLAF didn't.
> They could have easily avoided the whole situation if they just ignored the lawsuit brought against them in Germany.
That would not have avoided having court decision - that would just lead to the decision be by default, without their argument even being heard and without the court exposing the flimsy base on which the decision stands. They'd have lost not because the argument is bad but because they didn't show up. And you can't appeal not showing up.
> They are fighting in a German court, even if they could have avoided it, because they would prefer not to have a German court decision? That doesn't make any sense.
I am not sure what gives you trouble here. Imagine you are wrongfully arrested. You would then probably go to court and demand your being released, and compensated, even if you would prefer - and would vigorously claim - that the entire arrest is unlawful and you shouldn't even be here at the first place. Same here.
> The way to avoid embarrassment on all sides would have been to ignore the lawsuit
Ignoring court decisions rarely works that well, especially in modern globalized world.
He explains this further down. To paraphrase, he doesn't want to endanger his appeal by flaunting the German court order
Seems punitive to me, rather than 'fair'. US copyright law has no jurisdiction the same as German copyright law, other than by coincidence of geography/volunteer base. I think Project Gutenberg is doing the best thing it can for itself. I associate the project with doing the best thing it can for people.
In general, we're going to run into increasing numbers of cases like this.
In general, we're going to run into increasing numbers of cases like this.
I made a tiny donation just now.
Can someone in Germany confirm this block is actually in place?
In any case, if anyone in Germany would like to access Project Gutenberg, I maintain a full, daily updated mirror here: https://mirrors.sorengard.com/gutenberg. I also support FTP and Rsync if you’d like to download that way.
No donations are asked for, but it would be helpful if more people hosted mirrors for precisely this reason :). Unfortunately this mirror doesn’t have the search capabilities of the Project Gutenberg homepage, but it at least has all the files.
Now I’m actually curious about what is going to happen with Project Gutenberg mirrors. In general, many mirror admins (such as myself) join a project’s mirror mailing list and don’t necessarily pay attention to the right announcements to learn about this kind of legal minutia. That presents something of a logistics problem all around.
Putting aside ethics, it’s likely that many/most downstream mirrors simply won’t block German traffic. Project Gutenberg can stop redirecting German traffic to those mirrors on the fly, but they can’t stop the mirrors from being available unless they start banning mirrors (and mirror syncing traffic) that don’t enforce similar blocks...this seems logistically untenable.
It would be cool if we could get a lawyer to chime in about Project Gutenberg’s liability with respect to forcing other mirrors to comply. For example, I’m making my own mirror available to Germany. Is Project Gutenberg complicit in a meaningful sense, if they allow me to continue mirroring?
In any case, if anyone in Germany would like to access Project Gutenberg, I maintain a full, daily updated mirror here: https://mirrors.sorengard.com/gutenberg. I also support FTP and Rsync if you’d like to download that way.
No donations are asked for, but it would be helpful if more people hosted mirrors for precisely this reason :). Unfortunately this mirror doesn’t have the search capabilities of the Project Gutenberg homepage, but it at least has all the files.
Now I’m actually curious about what is going to happen with Project Gutenberg mirrors. In general, many mirror admins (such as myself) join a project’s mirror mailing list and don’t necessarily pay attention to the right announcements to learn about this kind of legal minutia. That presents something of a logistics problem all around.
Putting aside ethics, it’s likely that many/most downstream mirrors simply won’t block German traffic. Project Gutenberg can stop redirecting German traffic to those mirrors on the fly, but they can’t stop the mirrors from being available unless they start banning mirrors (and mirror syncing traffic) that don’t enforce similar blocks...this seems logistically untenable.
It would be cool if we could get a lawyer to chime in about Project Gutenberg’s liability with respect to forcing other mirrors to comply. For example, I’m making my own mirror available to Germany. Is Project Gutenberg complicit in a meaningful sense, if they allow me to continue mirroring?
>Can someone who is in Germany actually confirm this block is in place?
Cannot confirm it, Gutenberg.org works fine for me.
Edit: tried 3 different ISPs, no issues.
Edit 2: Tried accessing books, this was blocked for 1/3.
Cannot confirm it, Gutenberg.org works fine for me.
Edit: tried 3 different ISPs, no issues.
Edit 2: Tried accessing books, this was blocked for 1/3.
Interesting, thanks. I wonder if the block was more localized then all of Germany, if it was simply misconfigured, or if they just decided to stop blocking the traffic.
They only block the books themselves, not the index pages. Attempting to view any book will result in a block message.
Works fine for me for all books I tested. Can you name some specific ones which are blocked for you?
I'm on one of the biggest German ISPs (Deutsche Telekom) and I can access front page and books just fine.
Tried it with the HTML versions of four different books, among them "most popular" like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and A Tale of Two Cities, they all work without issue.
Tried it with the HTML versions of four different books, among them "most popular" like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and A Tale of Two Cities, they all work without issue.
Can anything be made using ipfs?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Certainly, given that each ebook could be a static hash. But you'd need to revise index pages periodically. And I'm not sure how search could be implemented. Except through Google, which does index pages from https://ipfs.io/ipfs/ . However, I gather that IPFS respects take-down requests, so you might need to use another gateway.
Isn't IPFS peer to peer? Then it would be no different than using Torrent clients. Users would be just noticed or sued individually.
Can confirm it. All books are blocked even though the front page is accessible.
[deleted]
Ah, maybe that explains the conflicting reports. Can you at least search for books and see results?
IPv6?
Works fine for me. Seems like the block is not active at the moment.
Edit: Individual books are blocked.
Edit: Individual books are blocked.
Your IP Address is Blocked from www.gutenberg.org
We apologize for this inconvenience. Your IP address has been automatically blocked from the address you tried to visit at www.gutenberg.org. This is because the geoIP database shows your address is in the country of Germany.
Diagnostic information:
Your IP address: <redacted>
Referrer URL (if available): http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/latest-covers
Time (GMT): Saturday, 03-Mar-2018 21:19:12 GMT
Why did this block occur?
A Court in Germany ordered that access to certain items in the Project Gutenberg collection are blocked from Germany. Project Gutenberg believes the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter, but until the issue is resolved during appeal, it will comply.
For more information about the German court case, visit PGLAF's information page about the German lawsuit.
For more information about the legal advice Project Gutenberg has received concerning international issues, visit PGLAF's International Copyright Guidance for Project Gutenberg
How can I get unblocked?
All IP addresses in Germany are blocked. This block will remain in place until legal guidance changes.
If your IP address lookup is incorrect
Use the Maxmind GeoIP demo to verify status of your IP address. Project Gutenberg updates its listing of IP addresses approximately monthly.
We apologize for this inconvenience. Your IP address has been automatically blocked from the address you tried to visit at www.gutenberg.org. This is because the geoIP database shows your address is in the country of Germany.
Diagnostic information:
Your IP address: <redacted>
Referrer URL (if available): http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/latest-covers
Time (GMT): Saturday, 03-Mar-2018 21:19:12 GMT
Why did this block occur?
A Court in Germany ordered that access to certain items in the Project Gutenberg collection are blocked from Germany. Project Gutenberg believes the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter, but until the issue is resolved during appeal, it will comply.
For more information about the German court case, visit PGLAF's information page about the German lawsuit.
For more information about the legal advice Project Gutenberg has received concerning international issues, visit PGLAF's International Copyright Guidance for Project Gutenberg
How can I get unblocked?
All IP addresses in Germany are blocked. This block will remain in place until legal guidance changes.
If your IP address lookup is incorrect
Use the Maxmind GeoIP demo to verify status of your IP address. Project Gutenberg updates its listing of IP addresses approximately monthly.
> A Court in Germany ordered that access to certain items in the Project Gutenberg collection are blocked from Germany... until the issue is resolved during appeal, [Project Gutenberg] will comply.
This is really misleading. It implies -- nay, outright states -- that Gutenberg is merely complying with the court order. But the court did not order the entire site to be blocked.
A more candid answer is found in their information page:[1]
Q: Why block all of Germany, rather than just those 18 books?
A: ...Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books, there is every reason to think that this will keep happening... Blocking Germany, in an effort to forestall further legal actions, seems the best way to protect the organization and retain focus on its mission.
[1] https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/index.html
This is really misleading. It implies -- nay, outright states -- that Gutenberg is merely complying with the court order. But the court did not order the entire site to be blocked.
A more candid answer is found in their information page:[1]
Q: Why block all of Germany, rather than just those 18 books?
A: ...Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books, there is every reason to think that this will keep happening... Blocking Germany, in an effort to forestall further legal actions, seems the best way to protect the organization and retain focus on its mission.
[1] https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/index.html
I thought it was pretty clear. They specifically say "certain items" were to be blocked, not the entire website.
I disagree - it's not at all clear. Most people reading the statement would assume that the book they were trying to access was among the 'certain items' blocked by the court.
[deleted]
I'm currently in Germany. The notice appears when trying to access any part of the catalog, even the search. Thus, I don't think this is an issue.
It also appears for the URL they give in the FAQ for donations :-(
Prededents.
Further lawsuits against PG for any of the other German texts could bankrupt the organization.
Further lawsuits against PG for any of the other German texts could bankrupt the organization.
This is answered in the FAQ at the bottom of the article. Essentially because this sets a precedent that Germany believes it can sue over anything in the german language and other items in the library might potentially cause the same kind of lawsuit it's better to just block everything instead.
> Germany believes it can sue over anything in the german language
You did not read the ruling (carefully). The language of the books was not discussed at all. It was discussed whether the offer (to download books) is directed to people in Germany.
Project Gutenberg said "NO", because they use a .org domain. (Obviously trying to claim that Germans only visit .de domains and neglecting the fact that .org is really trying to stress international coverage)
The court ruled "YES" because
- Project Gutenberg explicitly mentions to be available worldwide (before the geo blocking resulting from this very case)
- Project Gutenberg has some of its Web site translated into German. (In court they argued they did that to address US users, because German is the 3rd biggest foreign language in the US. The court did not accept that argument.)
Furthermore it was counted against them that project Gutenberg advises on its web site that users must check local copyright laws before downloading, because downloading might be illegal according to local laws.
Taking these points into account I must say the court ruling was logical from a legal viewpoint. Project Gutenberg had only lame excuses and in fact denied their own mission in court.
The real issue is that incompatible country laws don't fit at all with Internet (unless you propose a Chinese big (fire)wall). But I don't see any improvements any time soon, a certain president just declared last week that trade wars are the way to go.
You did not read the ruling (carefully). The language of the books was not discussed at all. It was discussed whether the offer (to download books) is directed to people in Germany.
Project Gutenberg said "NO", because they use a .org domain. (Obviously trying to claim that Germans only visit .de domains and neglecting the fact that .org is really trying to stress international coverage)
The court ruled "YES" because
- Project Gutenberg explicitly mentions to be available worldwide (before the geo blocking resulting from this very case)
- Project Gutenberg has some of its Web site translated into German. (In court they argued they did that to address US users, because German is the 3rd biggest foreign language in the US. The court did not accept that argument.)
Furthermore it was counted against them that project Gutenberg advises on its web site that users must check local copyright laws before downloading, because downloading might be illegal according to local laws.
Taking these points into account I must say the court ruling was logical from a legal viewpoint. Project Gutenberg had only lame excuses and in fact denied their own mission in court.
The real issue is that incompatible country laws don't fit at all with Internet (unless you propose a Chinese big (fire)wall). But I don't see any improvements any time soon, a certain president just declared last week that trade wars are the way to go.
Why doesn't Austria have jurisdiction for German content, do they not speak German in Austria? Do UK courts have jurisdiction over companies which produce content in English? It's absurd to think that an element to establishing jurisdiction is the language content is produced in.
They said they have jurisdiction because the contents is directed (also) to users in Germany. They said nothing about exclusive jurisdiction or exclusively directed to Germany. They also ruled that access to the average user in Germany must not be easy (acknowledging that the user decided to download can circumvent it.) There was not a word about making the contents available to users in any other country.
In the context of existing copyright laws the ruling is understandable. It's just plain nonsense to have contradicting copyright laws in the age of a global internet. And if you say that copyright should only be enforced according to the country of the distributor then you just move all contents to a country that does not enforce at all. But isn't it just the US that complains a lot about (their) IP not enforced in China or Vietnam?
In the context of existing copyright laws the ruling is understandable. It's just plain nonsense to have contradicting copyright laws in the age of a global internet. And if you say that copyright should only be enforced according to the country of the distributor then you just move all contents to a country that does not enforce at all. But isn't it just the US that complains a lot about (their) IP not enforced in China or Vietnam?
As you surmise, I have not read the ruling. I was basing my understanding from the following in the article:
> Q: Why didn't Project Gutenberg block access until the Court made its judgement?
> A: PGLAF's legal advisors disagree that any foreign Court or entity has jurisdiction over its actions regarding copyright. The Court in Germany has promoted a theory that it has jurisdiction, mainly because the www.gutenberg.org site has some content in the German language. ...
> Q: So the court thinks that the presence of content in German means that courts in Germany have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that PGLAF is entirely in the US?
> A: Yes, that was the original basis of the claim for jurisdiction, which the Court accepted in their judgement. Since then, there some more recent decisions in the European Court of Justice, and other German courts, that support this theory based on a Web site being accessible from a country. I.e., if a Web site is accessible from Germany, there are some cases where German courts claimed jurisdiction over that site, even though it was operated, and based, outside of Germany. These cases involve companies that actually operate (for-profit) in Europe, and the cases were between two European countries (i.e. part of the EU). They are not consistent with prior laws and cases, even in Europe, and also not consistent with provisions of the Berne Convention and other international law.
> Q: Why didn't Project Gutenberg block access until the Court made its judgement?
> A: PGLAF's legal advisors disagree that any foreign Court or entity has jurisdiction over its actions regarding copyright. The Court in Germany has promoted a theory that it has jurisdiction, mainly because the www.gutenberg.org site has some content in the German language. ...
> Q: So the court thinks that the presence of content in German means that courts in Germany have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that PGLAF is entirely in the US?
> A: Yes, that was the original basis of the claim for jurisdiction, which the Court accepted in their judgement. Since then, there some more recent decisions in the European Court of Justice, and other German courts, that support this theory based on a Web site being accessible from a country. I.e., if a Web site is accessible from Germany, there are some cases where German courts claimed jurisdiction over that site, even though it was operated, and based, outside of Germany. These cases involve companies that actually operate (for-profit) in Europe, and the cases were between two European countries (i.e. part of the EU). They are not consistent with prior laws and cases, even in Europe, and also not consistent with provisions of the Berne Convention and other international law.
PG decided they don't have time to deal with Germany's BS, so they implemented the simplest solution guaranteed to work.
The simplest solution would have been to do nothing.
They still have to comply with the court ruling, i.e. at least block those 18 books in Germany, as they aren't The Pirate Bay. The website's move is smart because it avoids future complications coming from the Urheberrechtsgesetz, the German copyright law, and draws much-needed public attention to how easy it is for bully firms to abuse it.
The Q and A contradicts this.
>Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.
>Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.
According to the ruling, the CEO wouldn't be liable personally unless the violation is willful. Which, having been adjudicated in German court, it now would be. If the CEO becomes personally liable then found in contempt, he would have to avoid travel to Germany. That's a lot to ask of a volunteer.
How come they have to obey the court in Germany?
Copyright laws are to be respected whatever the country. This is a border case, so to see if the principle is sound, let's imagine something. Let's say a country, for whatever reason, decides that its copyright protections are of 1 year only. After that, this country decides that all books, movies, games are freely available from its territory through the internet because their copyrights are expired. Does anyone believes that all the other countries will say : "no problem, it's their law and the site is from their territory, so everything's allright" ?
So, laws from any country have to be respected, especially with a global system like the internet. It is often annoying, sometimes disconcerting, but no country would allow their society to be governed by foreign laws.
And I really appreciate even more the Project Gutenberg for that, because they care about laws everywhere and obey them according to the territory (the fact that they went for the easy way by blocking the entire country is really not important: it is just a matter of resources, so we have to donate more if this is what bothers us).
You're giving an ethical reason, but I'm more interested in the actual consequences of a US entity ignoring a German court ruling. I'm not sure what teeth this court actually has with regard to American citizens.
No one really wants to antagonize the court system of another country for ever, so this gives the German courts some teeth. In this case Project Gutenberg is saying they are complying because they want an appeal and that the courts would look unfavourably on them if they just ignored the original order.
Is the country with the one-year copyrights a Berne Convention signatory?
If so, then it is in violation of the treaty, which sets a minimum term for copyrights. The WIPO may adjudicate and other signatories may take action.
If not, then what you have is a national sovereignty issue. Other countries can restrict trade with the one with different laws, but they can't directly stop it from refusing to be similar to them (without a military invasion!).
This is currently the situation with things like online gambling. It's legal in some parts of the world, and in others the citizens accessing the sites may be prosecuted, but the sites themselves are usually beyond the reach of the disapproving countries - often the USA.
I should note that it is totally possible to have two countries with CONTRADICTORY laws that cannot be simultaneously satisfied. How would you deal with that situation, if all must be respected?
If so, then it is in violation of the treaty, which sets a minimum term for copyrights. The WIPO may adjudicate and other signatories may take action.
If not, then what you have is a national sovereignty issue. Other countries can restrict trade with the one with different laws, but they can't directly stop it from refusing to be similar to them (without a military invasion!).
This is currently the situation with things like online gambling. It's legal in some parts of the world, and in others the citizens accessing the sites may be prosecuted, but the sites themselves are usually beyond the reach of the disapproving countries - often the USA.
I should note that it is totally possible to have two countries with CONTRADICTORY laws that cannot be simultaneously satisfied. How would you deal with that situation, if all must be respected?
That would be risky for the people running Project Gutenberg, since Germany and the US have extradition treaties.
Unlikely to be extradited for an extra-territorial claim. But the members of the executive and the board might not want to strike Germany from their list of travel destinations forever.
More like retaliated to make a point.
For comparison, if they faced a U.S. publisher demand to block some books that were in violation, and in response they blocked all of the U.S., it would be misleading to suggest this was merely the "simplest solution".
For comparison, if they faced a U.S. publisher demand to block some books that were in violation, and in response they blocked all of the U.S., it would be misleading to suggest this was merely the "simplest solution".
You quoted them selectively to make your retaliation point. The full quote from the FAQ presents a very good argument, allowing access from a hostile legal jurisdiction could encourage thousands of cases and bankrupt the project:
>There are thousands of eBooks in the Project Gutenberg collection that could be subject to similar over-reaching and illigitimate actions.
>PGLAF is a small volunteer organization, with no income (it doesn't sell anything), other than donations. There is every reason to fear that this huge corporation, with the backing of the German Court, will continue to take legal action. In fact, at least one other similar complaint arrived in 2017 about different books in the Project Gutenberg collection, from another company in Germany.
>There are thousands of eBooks in the Project Gutenberg collection that could be subject to similar over-reaching and illigitimate actions.
>PGLAF is a small volunteer organization, with no income (it doesn't sell anything), other than donations. There is every reason to fear that this huge corporation, with the backing of the German Court, will continue to take legal action. In fact, at least one other similar complaint arrived in 2017 about different books in the Project Gutenberg collection, from another company in Germany.
If German courts maintains that making content available in Germany (ie, putting it on the Internet) gives them jurisdiction over your organisation, your choices are to be compliant with German law, or not to be available in Germany. PGLAF does not have the budget, nor the philosophical inclination to be compliant with German law, so that leaves one option. As you quoted in your GP, they have no reason to believe this will end with these 18 works, so the alternative really is compliance, not just blocking 18 works.
I'm sure PGLAF will welcome a German spin-off that makes works available in a manner compliant with German law, they just don't have the resources to be that place.
(Oh, and so what if they retaliated? Seems like a perfectly reasonable excuse for a bit of theatrics.)
I'm sure PGLAF will welcome a German spin-off that makes works available in a manner compliant with German law, they just don't have the resources to be that place.
(Oh, and so what if they retaliated? Seems like a perfectly reasonable excuse for a bit of theatrics.)
That would only be the case if they thought the 18 books would be the end of the matter.
Quite obviously, it would not, so blocking all of Germany is the correct move to prevent any future cases under the same legal theories.
They don't want to be under German jurisdiction; the German court has said that serving users in Germany puts them under German jurisdiction; therefore they are no longer serving users in Germany. This seems like it should satisfy everyone concerned.
Quite obviously, it would not, so blocking all of Germany is the correct move to prevent any future cases under the same legal theories.
They don't want to be under German jurisdiction; the German court has said that serving users in Germany puts them under German jurisdiction; therefore they are no longer serving users in Germany. This seems like it should satisfy everyone concerned.
You're getting downvoted because it sounds like you're defending the plaintiffs, but you're essentially right. They could have minimized disruption to German users by removing the affected books and committing to remove other books upon request. They instead chose to respond in a very broad way that will draw a lot of attention.
Which, I want to be clear, is a good thing. PG is absolutely in the right here, and this response is well-calculated to raise awareness and put their attackers in the spotlight.
Which, I want to be clear, is a good thing. PG is absolutely in the right here, and this response is well-calculated to raise awareness and put their attackers in the spotlight.
It says "ordered that access to certain items..." I don't see anything misleading, or any implication that the court ordered the whole site blocked. I think it is obvious that only a few items were ordered to be blocked but they decided to block the whole site
As the block page states, the court order states that certain items must be blocked - it does not specify the means by which it must be accomplished. Blocking German IPs is the simplest way to achieve that.
Based on how media companies sue German torrent sharers (it's a cash cow for the law firms, like the one that is involved here, Waldorf Frommer), they sue individuals for making copyrighted content available on the internet -- because when you're torrenting something other people can get the completed parts from your computer, so if you run a mirror which is accessible from Germany, you will probably get a letter from the above law firm.
> if you run a mirror which is accessible from Germany
Access from Germany isn't the issue, having a German IP is the issue. They don't go after foreign seeders because that would be too much hassle getting the real data behind the IP (just like German law doesn't apply to them), but they hunt down seeders with German IP's with quite a vengeance.
Access from Germany isn't the issue, having a German IP is the issue. They don't go after foreign seeders because that would be too much hassle getting the real data behind the IP (just like German law doesn't apply to them), but they hunt down seeders with German IP's with quite a vengeance.
PG is a US organization. They may have volunteer mirrors in Germany, but all of PG itself is in San Francisco, right?
Now we're mixing up 2 issues... torrents of copyrighted content with German seeders, and e-books of copyrighted content (at least copyrighted in Germany) with a website provider.
They only go for German seeders because asking a foreign ISP for the address of someone who used a particular IP address at a particular date and time would probably get them the middle finger as a reply. In the case of PG, they know who is making the copyrighted content available in Germany, because PG has an address on their website.
And a German court said it's within their jurisdiction.
If you run a mirror with your contact information available, presumably they will contact you next.
They only go for German seeders because asking a foreign ISP for the address of someone who used a particular IP address at a particular date and time would probably get them the middle finger as a reply. In the case of PG, they know who is making the copyrighted content available in Germany, because PG has an address on their website.
And a German court said it's within their jurisdiction.
If you run a mirror with your contact information available, presumably they will contact you next.
Yep, they are serious business, not one of the dodgy ones that send out as many threatening letters as possible and hope that a few pay. They'll actually go to court, or did so in the past, with a huge army of lawyers. When the "fliegende gerichtsstand" was abolished they got more selective with which cases they actually took to court, depending on the city they'd have to go to. Before, all cases were handled in Munich, and the judges there were pretty much rubber-stamping the cases in favor of WF.
> Waldorf Frommer
Oh they are still around?! Someone should shut them down and jail for the mere reason of the enourmous amount of paper they waste on trolling letters.
Oh they are still around?! Someone should shut them down and jail for the mere reason of the enourmous amount of paper they waste on trolling letters.
I've seen them squeeze 1000 Euro out of so many people (usually the sum they go for, making it a tad more expensive than a defence lawyer would cost you). It's a sad state of affairs.
Works (Search, lookup, random German authors) fine for me.
PS: I'm surfing with (mostly) this configuration:
http://12bytes.org/tech/firefox/firefoxgecko-configuration-g...
No idea, if this might affect the outcome. IMHO, not.
PS: I'm surfing with (mostly) this configuration:
http://12bytes.org/tech/firefox/firefoxgecko-configuration-g...
No idea, if this might affect the outcome. IMHO, not.
Did you actually open a book? Because everything else is not blocked.
Several. HTML versions though. Might be IPv6 as mentioned above.
Sad...
Sad...
Ot: what are the logistics of running a pg mirror, traffic and space wise?
I can still access it. No proxies or VPNs of any kind, just regular Telekom DSL.
Also Telekom DSL, not blocked.
edit: Sorry: Only the frontpage isn't, search and books are ...
edit: Sorry: Only the frontpage isn't, search and books are ...
Can confirm block in O2 network, I can visit the homepage but access no books.
geofencing is not perfect.
Confirmed. Download pages are blocked. But reachable via non german VPN servers.
Seems like money rules the world - sad...
Thanks for the mirror!
They probably blocked some version of Mein Kampf, which they have every right to do and ought to do.
Why? I hate everything Hitler stood for. I read mein kampf it did not change my opinion.
[deleted]
The authors and books are listed in the linked faq. None seem politically related, although I don't know German.
Read them in the original. They are not pleasant and bringing up the memory of those things is just as bad as causing them.
I get ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR
Hi! Thanks for the service you do for others by mirroring this content - what's involved with being a mirror? I'm not sure if it's something I have the means or skills to do, but Project Gutenberg (and information projects like it) are the key part of the internet — the parts that deserve to be reserved and accessed freely by all. I'd love to see if there's anything I could do to help out!
It’s very easy. I host official mirrors for a bunch of open source projects at https://mirrors.sorengard.com.
You set up Apache on a web server you control, configure virtual host settings in the Apache config files, then put your files to be hosted in something like /var/www/ and point Apache to it. Then set up Rsync by running the rsync daemon and setting an /etc/rsyncd.conf file that configures where the files are located and who can access them.
For example, let’s say you wanted to set up a mirror for the Ubuntu Package Archive. You could do that step by step with the following resources:
1. https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-inst...
2. https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-set-...
3. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Rsyncmirror
Maybe I’ll write up a short guide and throw it up somewhere. It’s really pretty straightforward. FTP is unfortunately trickier than HTTP and Rsync, but vsftpd removes a lot of the warts.
You set up Apache on a web server you control, configure virtual host settings in the Apache config files, then put your files to be hosted in something like /var/www/ and point Apache to it. Then set up Rsync by running the rsync daemon and setting an /etc/rsyncd.conf file that configures where the files are located and who can access them.
For example, let’s say you wanted to set up a mirror for the Ubuntu Package Archive. You could do that step by step with the following resources:
1. https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-inst...
2. https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-set-...
3. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Rsyncmirror
Maybe I’ll write up a short guide and throw it up somewhere. It’s really pretty straightforward. FTP is unfortunately trickier than HTTP and Rsync, but vsftpd removes a lot of the warts.
You mirror sage, but your site still links to sage.org, which seems to be defunct AFAICT, current is http://www.sagemath.org
The block is indeed in place, but trivially circumvented using a VPN.
Please e careful with your mirror. You are now susceptible to the same lawsuit as the original Project Gutenberg. I am not sure where you are in the world, but Germany has legal assistance treaties with the US/UK/Scandanavia, all EEC and Schengen countries.
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/108th-congress/27/d... https://www.mlat.info/mlat-index
Please e careful with your mirror. You are now susceptible to the same lawsuit as the original Project Gutenberg. I am not sure where you are in the world, but Germany has legal assistance treaties with the US/UK/Scandanavia, all EEC and Schengen countries.
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/108th-congress/27/d... https://www.mlat.info/mlat-index
Wouldn’t this be a good use case for IPFS? Then we could share the traffic and don’t have a single point of failure.
Sure, I don’t see why not. How involved is the process of putting the data onto IPFS?
I'm German and I can access it, and that book all of Mann's other books.
I am not blocked. I could've even download "Der Vater" one of the eBooks from the case.
And yes german copyright laws are a fucking joke.
And yes german copyright laws are a fucking joke.
> copyright laws are a fucking joke.
Fixed that for you :-)
Fixed that for you :-)
German ones are a particularly dark one.
How are German ones worse? I always think of Disney and Mosanto when I think about litigious companies..
The German copy right law was quite noticeable written with companies in mind, and had originally a right to private copies to get private people out of the reaches of the law. You could copy an entire book, or a movie, give it to a friend and that would be perfectly legal. (As long as you are clearly not doing that in any kind of commercial fashion.)
Early in the last decade, judges ruled that this basically never applies to anything internet, with the result that the entire copyright law is applicable. That would not be a big problem, except the entire law is written with the idea that both parties have already lawyers on staff. One example is the "Abmahnung," the way copy right disputes are meant to be resolved is, the lawyer of anybody who believes their copy right to be infringed sends a letter that tells the other guy to stop that, pay damages and sign a contract to never do that again. The escalation of that is, when you receive such a letter, then you sue against the "Abmahnung" and the judge who hears the case also decides about the original infringement. Trouble is, you are now suing and therefore the court is wherever the people who send the "Abmahnung" in the first place reside -- not a big problem if you are an large company in the first place.
Early in the last decade, judges ruled that this basically never applies to anything internet, with the result that the entire copyright law is applicable. That would not be a big problem, except the entire law is written with the idea that both parties have already lawyers on staff. One example is the "Abmahnung," the way copy right disputes are meant to be resolved is, the lawyer of anybody who believes their copy right to be infringed sends a letter that tells the other guy to stop that, pay damages and sign a contract to never do that again. The escalation of that is, when you receive such a letter, then you sue against the "Abmahnung" and the judge who hears the case also decides about the original infringement. Trouble is, you are now suing and therefore the court is wherever the people who send the "Abmahnung" in the first place reside -- not a big problem if you are an large company in the first place.
You are misinformed on many levels.
You can still copy copyrighted data and send it to a friend over the internet, just like you can copy a book cover to cover and give the copy to a friend. The focus is on friend, however. When you torrent and connect to strangers, then it is public distribution and not anymore sharing between friends.
Also, the law § 104a UhrG clearly states that copyright infringement has to be brought to the local court of the defendant, when the defendant is a natural person. This is the case since the 9th October 2013.
Please don't spread wrong information.
You can still copy copyrighted data and send it to a friend over the internet, just like you can copy a book cover to cover and give the copy to a friend. The focus is on friend, however. When you torrent and connect to strangers, then it is public distribution and not anymore sharing between friends.
Also, the law § 104a UhrG clearly states that copyright infringement has to be brought to the local court of the defendant, when the defendant is a natural person. This is the case since the 9th October 2013.
Please don't spread wrong information.
Stuff like this makes me want to run a mirror too.
If I may ask, how much disk capacity does running a Gutenberg mirror currently take?
If I may ask, how much disk capacity does running a Gutenberg mirror currently take?
I am not using a VPN or anything and can access http://www.gutenberg.org/ just fine from germany (including access to books). Not sure why though.
I just tried and it was not blocked. maybe the block does not work on IPv6..
Same here on 1&1.
How big is the data?
I think that is also a good case for hosting this on ZeroNet, the internet as it should be : P2P and decentralized.
I think that is also a good case for hosting this on ZeroNet, the internet as it should be : P2P and decentralized.
It still works for me and I can access the content of books. My provider is unitymedia.
[deleted]
Still works for me
The explanation is at least slightly dishonest (hopefully not intentionally) in claiming that jurisdiction was established due to content being available in German, which makes it sound like a whacko court claiming to own a language. Reading the decision one learns that some of the volunteers involved in running PG and posting these materials were residents of Germany.
>Reading the decision one learns that some of the volunteers involved in running PG and posting these materials were residents of Germany.
It is only mentioned in the plaintiff's complaint though, not in the reasoning by the court.
It is only mentioned in the plaintiff's complaint though, not in the reasoning by the court.
Definitely intentionally. Shame on Project Gutenberg and their lawyers.
This is kinda the same tactic that was used by YouTube to block videos in Germany, blocking them with a message about to the GEMA issue.
It might be slightly dishonest, but it's at least pointing the user in the direction of the actual culprit. Imho this is a valid approach because it creates awareness for a problem that the vast majority of people are never really aware of.
It might be slightly dishonest, but it's at least pointing the user in the direction of the actual culprit. Imho this is a valid approach because it creates awareness for a problem that the vast majority of people are never really aware of.
I thought so too reading the first couple of pages of the decision, but in the judicial conclusion section, the jurisdictional issue is squarely resolved on the "targets German users" issue, which the court bases on
1) Partial translation of the website
2) The availability of German language works
3) The "anyone anywhere" language on the website
4) A disclaimer that people should check their local laws (implying in the opinion of the court that they knew non-US persons were accessing their material and intentionally targeting their offering to such people).
So yeah, while the language issue is only part of the judicial reasoning, is is indeed mentioned three times in the judicial conclusions. The court does not however appear to adopt plaintiff's theory on jurisdiction because some of the volunteers were German.
As such, I'm inclined to think that while the focus on the language issue is perhaps a bit overstated in their statement, it is definitely grounded in the opinion of the court.
As an aside though, I'm not convinced the court spent too much time considering the jurisdictional arguments here, which I think are probably the most important part of this case. Most of the analysis is concerned with whether the publisher plausibly alleged they own the copyright. I assume that is because that is usually the primary point of contention in copyright cases.
So yeah, while the language issue is only part of the judicial reasoning, is is indeed mentioned three times in the judicial conclusions. The court does not however appear to adopt plaintiff's theory on jurisdiction because some of the volunteers were German.
As such, I'm inclined to think that while the focus on the language issue is perhaps a bit overstated in their statement, it is definitely grounded in the opinion of the court.
As an aside though, I'm not convinced the court spent too much time considering the jurisdictional arguments here, which I think are probably the most important part of this case. Most of the analysis is concerned with whether the publisher plausibly alleged they own the copyright. I assume that is because that is usually the primary point of contention in copyright cases.
This legal theory is completely nuts. This means if I write something in, say, Russian on my website, and it's accessible to people from Russia, I am now considered to be obliged to follow every whim of Putin regarding my site's contents, even if I don't ever step my foot in Russia and don't want anything to do with it? Hopefully this is just plain old corruption and not idiotic legal theory that language you use makes you subject to whatever laws any state using the same language invents, even if you reside on the other side of the planet and want nothing to do with that country.
I'm reminded of the quote "A language is a dialect with an army and navy"
The language is one factor of many used to determine if you're doing business in Germany. Otherwise you have loopholes where German language websites advertising in German, to Germans, accepting Euros, and shipping to German addresses, is somehow not considered to be "doing business" in Germany simply because their offices and servers happen to be hosted in the US.
Not completely nuts, but definitely an overreach.
Not completely nuts, but definitely an overreach.
> where German language websites advertising in German, to Germans, accepting Euros, and shipping to German addresses, is somehow not considered to be "doing business" in Germany simply because their offices and servers happen to be hosted in the US
You're saying it like it's a bad thing. If US has better laws than Germany and businesses serving Germans want to choose that jurisdiction because of it, it's "competition", not a "loophole". Otherwise another "loophole" we could find is that some Germans, seeking lower taxes and high standards of living, and more beneficial laws, may just move to US altogether, thus depriving German state of much needed tax income and stopping being subjects to German laws. We wouldn't want them to plug that "loophole", do we?
You're saying it like it's a bad thing. If US has better laws than Germany and businesses serving Germans want to choose that jurisdiction because of it, it's "competition", not a "loophole". Otherwise another "loophole" we could find is that some Germans, seeking lower taxes and high standards of living, and more beneficial laws, may just move to US altogether, thus depriving German state of much needed tax income and stopping being subjects to German laws. We wouldn't want them to plug that "loophole", do we?
You have to pay U.S. taxes on worldwide income. The U.S. is the only country that does this, though.
Not quite the only, but almost.
That is indeed a defect of US system, and one that people should account for when they make their choices. I wish US stopped doing that (especially that the tax treaties in many cases lead to the fact that US doesn't even see any money anyway, it just produces tons of paperwork for expats).
And what about publishing in English? Does the UK take precedence and the US has no standing? Or is a publisher subject to courts in both countries?
Technically, the US had no official language. It could claim jurisdiction over anything in any language.
UK courts have always held that US based publications/websites commit libel in the UK if they have a readership in the UK, irrespective or the location of the publisher.
The US doesn't enforce those judgements any more, but the UK still holds the principle.
The US doesn't enforce those judgements any more, but the UK still holds the principle.
UK libel laws are a known garbage fire. I think people in UK are starting to wake up to that and try to fix it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
> 4) A disclaimer that people should check their local law
How perverse. If you extrapolate this, any web site warning anybody about anything could be seen as endorsing that activity. "Child pornography is illegal and not supported by this web site" becomes "You knew there were child pornographers accessing your web site and this is proof you were aiding and abetting child pornography".
How perverse. If you extrapolate this, any web site warning anybody about anything could be seen as endorsing that activity. "Child pornography is illegal and not supported by this web site" becomes "You knew there were child pornographers accessing your web site and this is proof you were aiding and abetting child pornography".
I think you're misinterpreting it. The courts mean that this is an implicit acknowledgement that the contents featured on the Gutenberg website isn't necessarily legal everywhere in the world, and that local laws may apply. If this website was aimed solely at Americans, this notice would be moot.
It's like a Russian child pornography site warning that American members might be investigated by the FBI. If it didn't care about American members, it wouldn't put out such notice.
It's like a Russian child pornography site warning that American members might be investigated by the FBI. If it didn't care about American members, it wouldn't put out such notice.
It's a reminder to _users_; the implication is that whilst there is no legal impediment to them hosting the files, a user accessing them make violate local laws. It's an acknowledgement that PG cannot know the laws of every jurisdiction as they apply to every user - I'm not sure how it could be seen as suggesting those laws directly bind PG.
Likewise in your example, merely warning user _shouldn't_ make the operators subject to a foreign court. Said court would be able to seize equipment in its jurisdiction, pursue local users, compel payment processors not to do business with them etc., but a site operating legally wholly within its home jurisdiction (i.e. location of staff/business/servers etc.) shouldn't be subject to an overseas court merely because it is accessible from that location. It seems almost untenable that a site could comply with the local laws of every possible jurisdiction that may access the site.
Likewise in your example, merely warning user _shouldn't_ make the operators subject to a foreign court. Said court would be able to seize equipment in its jurisdiction, pursue local users, compel payment processors not to do business with them etc., but a site operating legally wholly within its home jurisdiction (i.e. location of staff/business/servers etc.) shouldn't be subject to an overseas court merely because it is accessible from that location. It seems almost untenable that a site could comply with the local laws of every possible jurisdiction that may access the site.
I'm not claiming that just the disclaimer is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Far from. But courts have a tendency to attempt to take every little detail into regard, even if it weighs very lightly in the presence of other arguments. In this case, having German language options and German volunteer staff is to me, personally, enough reason to state that the website is targeting Germans and that this requires compliance with German laws. If it weren't, it would be too easy to skirt jurisdiction and violate all kinds of laws.
While this, indeed, does mean you have to comply with the local laws of every possible jurisdiction, that's exactly what's happening today. Sometimes it's easier to comply (like Youtube blocking videos in Turkey), sometimes it's easier to pull out (like Google pulling out of China), and sometimes you just really don't care and let them do whatever they want (get yourself blocked like Facebook in many banana republics). It all boils down to how much effort you want to put in. Filtering certain content on your site can quickly prove laborious, as opposed to the trivial effort of just instituting a blanket IP ban as a response to takedown requests.
If you don't heed foreign courts, you're just asking for trouble. You might be out of their jurisdiction today but get into hot water when you ever travel there. You can't have your cake and eat it too, just like you can't make content available to citizens of a foreign jurisdiction without complying to their laws.
While this, indeed, does mean you have to comply with the local laws of every possible jurisdiction, that's exactly what's happening today. Sometimes it's easier to comply (like Youtube blocking videos in Turkey), sometimes it's easier to pull out (like Google pulling out of China), and sometimes you just really don't care and let them do whatever they want (get yourself blocked like Facebook in many banana republics). It all boils down to how much effort you want to put in. Filtering certain content on your site can quickly prove laborious, as opposed to the trivial effort of just instituting a blanket IP ban as a response to takedown requests.
If you don't heed foreign courts, you're just asking for trouble. You might be out of their jurisdiction today but get into hot water when you ever travel there. You can't have your cake and eat it too, just like you can't make content available to citizens of a foreign jurisdiction without complying to their laws.
That seems like especially bizarre reasoning considering that Germany isn't even the only country that speaks German natively. Why do they get jurisdiction instead of Austria?
> Why do they get jurisdiction instead of Austria?
They don't get jurisdiction instead of Austria; the court rules it had jurisdiction to hear the claim brought before it, not that Austrian courts would lack such jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is very often not exclusive.
They don't get jurisdiction instead of Austria; the court rules it had jurisdiction to hear the claim brought before it, not that Austrian courts would lack such jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is very often not exclusive.
I hope frivolous lawsuits such as this further inspire non profits to take their hosting to decentralized providers such as zeronet and ipfs. There’s almost no need to host these projects centrally anymore, and it seems to only invite attacks such as this one.
It’s not frivolous, almost by definition, if you win a lawsuit. You can disagree with this court’s judgement on all sorts of issues, but Germany isn’t usually known to be a banana republic with corrupt and/or completely incompetent judges.
[deleted]
> mainly because the www.gutenberg.org site has some content in the German language.
That's an extraordinary theory of international law. By that logic Austria and Namibia also have jurisdiction.
That's an extraordinary theory of international law. By that logic Austria and Namibia also have jurisdiction.
It's false though. The court says German law applies because German users can access the site. German language is only briefly mentioned, but not the argument of the court.
How do you think so? From the court order:
"Hierfür spricht, dass die Webseite teilweise in Deutsch gehalten ist, dass auf der Seite Werke in deutscher Sprache angeboten werden [...]"
And there are even more arguments by the prosecutor which go beyond "accessible from Germany".
"Hierfür spricht, dass die Webseite teilweise in Deutsch gehalten ist, dass auf der Seite Werke in deutscher Sprache angeboten werden [...]"
And there are even more arguments by the prosecutor which go beyond "accessible from Germany".
In Sweden you have to follow swedish law if you target your business towards swedes. If you use swedish language, sell directly to swedes and so on. I'm sure Germany has something similar.
Swedish is a bit more rare in International linguistics, but German is not. There is an entire population in the American mideast that learn and speak German as just an example of a very far off population of non-German speakers of the language.
Even without speakers, Gutenberg hosting these books does not mean they are targeting Germans. I can put any of these texts through Google translate and read them myself despite my only experience with German being one class in high school.
Even without speakers, Gutenberg hosting these books does not mean they are targeting Germans. I can put any of these texts through Google translate and read them myself despite my only experience with German being one class in high school.
I can't think of a single US-specific website that has a German language option for German-speaking Midwesterners. There probably exist some, but their German language option will be very clearly described for this purpose when this is the motivation.
There's a difference between theoretical plausible deniability, and practical plausible deniability. This excuse falls in the first category, accompanied by other colourful excuses like "I didn't steal that, someone must've slipped it into my pocket and I didn't notice". Theoretically possible, but ultimately implausible and completely dismissible unless you've got proof to back it up.
This sort of "remote jurisdiction" is necessary. Otherwise the only recourse to criminal foreign sites targeting your country will be to endlessly try to block it, while blocks are cheap and easy to evade.
The GDPR rests on the same principle of remote jurisdiction. If your website targets EU citizens, you have to abide by EU privacy rules.
There's a difference between theoretical plausible deniability, and practical plausible deniability. This excuse falls in the first category, accompanied by other colourful excuses like "I didn't steal that, someone must've slipped it into my pocket and I didn't notice". Theoretically possible, but ultimately implausible and completely dismissible unless you've got proof to back it up.
This sort of "remote jurisdiction" is necessary. Otherwise the only recourse to criminal foreign sites targeting your country will be to endlessly try to block it, while blocks are cheap and easy to evade.
The GDPR rests on the same principle of remote jurisdiction. If your website targets EU citizens, you have to abide by EU privacy rules.
This is an extremely short (and misleading) summary of the courts argument. Among the reasons for assuming jurisdiction is the assumption that project Gutenberg targets users in Germany and part of that assumption is Project Gutenberg’s statement that the goal is to make the works available globally (thus including germany) (quote: “anyone anywhere”). The fact that content and at least parts of the page is available in Germany adds to that assumption. It’s been established that websites targeting german people (also) fall under german jurisdiction.
So no, not an extraordinary or new theory of international law.
So no, not an extraordinary or new theory of international law.
It is, however, a terrible theory, since the immediate effect is that every website is subject to every jurisdiction in the world.
While possibly terrible, the logic is not deniable.
No, that’s not the effect. If you make a website in the US hosted on US servers that does not obviously target german customers then you don’t fall under german jurisdiction. It’s not sufficient that your site is generally accessible from germany.
However, if you do add things as “we ship to germany” to a shop then you fall under german jurisdiction - which is fine in my books, because the customer should have a simpler legal recourse than the company.
Having to conform to foreign laws is just the flip side of being able to reach those people easily.
However, if you do add things as “we ship to germany” to a shop then you fall under german jurisdiction - which is fine in my books, because the customer should have a simpler legal recourse than the company.
Having to conform to foreign laws is just the flip side of being able to reach those people easily.
[deleted]
The Plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH
Are they related to Springer Verlag and/or that other German publishing group whose main objective was to take collections of Wikipedia articles, verbatim, and turn them into books?
Are they related to Springer Verlag and/or that other German publishing group whose main objective was to take collections of Wikipedia articles, verbatim, and turn them into books?
They belong to the Holtzbrinck Group [1]. They also operate a VC [2] and own or are invested in a lot of startups.
[1] https://www.holtzbrinck.com/
[2] http://www.hvventures.com/
[1] https://www.holtzbrinck.com/
[2] http://www.hvventures.com/
Which is, btw., entirely covered by the license as long as you allow redistribution and have proper attribution. Wikipedia is mostly covered by CC-BY-SA.
"Verlag" is just the German word for publishing house.
Is this Verlag related to the academic publisher / rent seeker, Springer Verlag?
Partially, the parent company is part of the SpringerNature joint venture.
"Verlag" just means "publishing company" in German.[1] There are probably many publishers in Germany that have that word in their name.
[1] https://translate.google.com/#de/en/Verlag
[1] https://translate.google.com/#de/en/Verlag
Verlag means "publisher", it's not part of a name.
(There are two publishers going by "Springer" though, you were referring to J. Springer, not A. Springer)
(There are two publishers going by "Springer" though, you were referring to J. Springer, not A. Springer)
This might be helpful. When I got randomly blocked for 24 hours (in the US), recently, some of the mirrors still worked. You can find them here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/MIRRORS.ALL
I’d be interested to see if they work in this case.
I’d be interested to see if they work in this case.
[deleted]
> PGLAF is entirely in the US
PGLAF has awesome mission, but that base assumption is not really correct. With publishing content in Germany (or whatever country) over Internet (or otherwise) they have crossed physical and legal borders. You must obey local laws everywhere and US laws are legal in their soil only. The attitude that US laws are something globally applicable and Internet is something above local laws is naive and total blockage “revenge” is just plain childish.
PGLAF has awesome mission, but that base assumption is not really correct. With publishing content in Germany (or whatever country) over Internet (or otherwise) they have crossed physical and legal borders. You must obey local laws everywhere and US laws are legal in their soil only. The attitude that US laws are something globally applicable and Internet is something above local laws is naive and total blockage “revenge” is just plain childish.
Perhaps if that’s the only action they ever take. In the short term, it’s possible it’s the only action they can safely take, if they want some time to analyze the situation.
Wooah careful there buddy, using the word "revenge" is not legal in my jurisdiction, and you just published it here by placing it on the internet!
You mock what the parent said, but yet, if something isn't legal in the USA, most would find it OK to be cut.
I dont say that such interpretation of international law over web content is practical, reasonable, etc, but it is as it is. Better be aware of this if you publish anything not trivial, otherwise your US (for example) lawyers will be happy to work on your hopeless case.
> total blockage “revenge” is just plain childish.
It seems like it is working to get them publicity. If germany doesn't like that they are now being blocked, then they should change their laws.
It is their website, so too bad for germany.
Protesting ridiculous copywrite laws is perfectly reasonable.
It seems like it is working to get them publicity. If germany doesn't like that they are now being blocked, then they should change their laws.
It is their website, so too bad for germany.
Protesting ridiculous copywrite laws is perfectly reasonable.
> If germany doesn't like that they are now being blocked, then they should change their laws.
Sadly it ain't as easy as that, the copyright lobby is very powerful in Germany, with their very own special interest laws like "mitstörerhaftung" [0] and the "Impressumspflicht". It's stuff like that which prevents open WLAN easily being run and operated because in Germany the person running the AP is liable for everything that happens trough said connection.
There are a ton of law firms who solely generate their income by sending out bulk cease&desist letters to torrent seeders, people who don't have a proper "Impressum" on their webpage and a number of other "formal" reasons. Kindergartens and retirement homes have gotten c&d letters over singing Christmas songs amounting to "copyrighted content".
These letters pretty much boil down to "Pay this fine and sign that you won't do it again if you still do it again you are liable for several thousands of € in damages".
Most people just pay the "fine" (usually starting at around 500€ sometimes quite a bit higher depending on the content) as it's easier and less hassle compared to taking it to the court, which are quite often technological inept and thus are very likely to side with the claimant's version of "This is theft/piracy!". It's pretty much a very own sub-sector of law firms in Germany.
Most people often think practices like these are something reserved to the US, a while ago, but Germany has its fair share of copyright insanity going on too. At this point, I'd guess Germany is even a far bit crazier than the US.
[0] https://qz.com/694618/why-is-it-impossible-to-find-free-wi-f...
[1] https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an-impressum/
Sadly it ain't as easy as that, the copyright lobby is very powerful in Germany, with their very own special interest laws like "mitstörerhaftung" [0] and the "Impressumspflicht". It's stuff like that which prevents open WLAN easily being run and operated because in Germany the person running the AP is liable for everything that happens trough said connection.
There are a ton of law firms who solely generate their income by sending out bulk cease&desist letters to torrent seeders, people who don't have a proper "Impressum" on their webpage and a number of other "formal" reasons. Kindergartens and retirement homes have gotten c&d letters over singing Christmas songs amounting to "copyrighted content".
These letters pretty much boil down to "Pay this fine and sign that you won't do it again if you still do it again you are liable for several thousands of € in damages".
Most people just pay the "fine" (usually starting at around 500€ sometimes quite a bit higher depending on the content) as it's easier and less hassle compared to taking it to the court, which are quite often technological inept and thus are very likely to side with the claimant's version of "This is theft/piracy!". It's pretty much a very own sub-sector of law firms in Germany.
Most people often think practices like these are something reserved to the US, a while ago, but Germany has its fair share of copyright insanity going on too. At this point, I'd guess Germany is even a far bit crazier than the US.
[0] https://qz.com/694618/why-is-it-impossible-to-find-free-wi-f...
[1] https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an-impressum/
Then Germany as an entity can deal with the results of their society being structured in a way that allows those special interests to have that level of control. America has the same problems as well but it's be unreasonable to expect people in other sovereignties to make special accommodations for me just because my government is making me follow a different set of rules
> it's be unreasonable to expect people in other sovereignties to make special accommodations for me
Nobody is expecting PG to do anything like that, what is expected is that PG just removes these 18 books from German access, if they don't then the German publisher can cease&desist them over giving access to said books, which would have no effect at all on GP due to it being an entity that's registered in California, so German c&d letters have literally no effect on them.
GP is taking a stance here, which I very much appreciate as a German, but quite a few people here seem to be misunderstanding what's actually happening here or expected from GP.
Nobody is expecting PG to do anything like that, what is expected is that PG just removes these 18 books from German access, if they don't then the German publisher can cease&desist them over giving access to said books, which would have no effect at all on GP due to it being an entity that's registered in California, so German c&d letters have literally no effect on them.
GP is taking a stance here, which I very much appreciate as a German, but quite a few people here seem to be misunderstanding what's actually happening here or expected from GP.
There is nothing in the decision about "German access".
"The defendants are ordered, on penalty of an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to 6 months, for each case of non- compliance, said imprisonment to be imposed on the second defendant, to cease and desist from making the following works publicly available or letting them be made publicly available, namely:..."
Plus damages.
"The defendants are ordered, on penalty of an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to 6 months, for each case of non- compliance, said imprisonment to be imposed on the second defendant, to cease and desist from making the following works publicly available or letting them be made publicly available, namely:..."
Plus damages.
The fact that they are talking about Germany is self-evident because it's a German court and they even wrote it out plainly, if you'd bothered to read further than the part you quoted:
"via the website www.gutenberg.org (including its sub-pages) without the plaintiff’s consent, if and to the extent to which it is possible for internet users to access them (screen display and/or download) from Germany."
If you want to talk about national courts censoring content from the whole www then you need to talk to US courts and their "chilling effects".
"via the website www.gutenberg.org (including its sub-pages) without the plaintiff’s consent, if and to the extent to which it is possible for internet users to access them (screen display and/or download) from Germany."
If you want to talk about national courts censoring content from the whole www then you need to talk to US courts and their "chilling effects".
Your expectation is that PG is going to go and add extra features and work to turn off specific items to comply with other people's rulesets. Why is PG expected to modify their behavior? It's certainly acceptable for Germany to not allow what PG does in Germany, but they don't get to pick and choose what's allowed if PG also doesn't want to play ball. PG is allowed to say it's a package deal
The Störerhaftung is not a special interest law for copyright. The idea is that you are at fault if others use you (/your stuff) to violate rights of a third party. For example if someone were to spray paint "freeflight sucks" on my house you could ask me to remove it and if I didn't, you could sue me.
Its interpretation in regards to online access is (was) very much special interest for copyright claimants and one of the major hurdles for getting free WiFi coverage in Germany.
Totally agree that bulk of the copywrite laws are unreasonable and unfit for the digital age. However, for me more interesting question is why they even went into the German court. In theory Germany could issue international warrant, but I doubt if they do it for minor cases, think of e.g. Snowden, Assange and Polanski cases. So at most they could have ordered blockage of the site/IP in their side, as long as book-specific ban is probably technically not doable. Also they may blacklist the offending persons from entering Germany/EU. Maybe US lawyers just saw big case with revenue and gave 'good' advice to go to the fight?
So if someone sues me due to this post, then good luck with that, unless you figure out where I am.
So if someone sues me due to this post, then good luck with that, unless you figure out where I am.
But they are not publishing content in Germany? German citizens are contacting and downloading content hosted in US servers, aren't they? This is like saying HN is publishing in Spain and has to obey Spanish laws just because I'm connecting from here.
[deleted]
> total blockage “revenge” is just plain childish
The article claims that they're doing it to protect themselves from future lawsuits, not as "revenge":
"Q: Why block all of Germany, rather than just those 18 books?
A: PGLAF's legal advisors disagree with all claims that there must be any blocking, or removal, or anything associated - censorship, fines/fees, disclaimers, etc. - for items that are in the public domain in the US. Period.[1]
Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books, there is every reason to think that this will keep happening. There are thousands of eBooks in the Project Gutenberg collection that could be subject to similar over-reaching and illigitimate actions.
PGLAF is a small volunteer organization, with no income (it doesn't sell anything), other than donations. There is every reason to fear that this huge corporation, with the backing of the German Court, will continue to take legal action. In fact, at least one other similar complaint arrived in 2017 about different books in the Project Gutenberg collection, from another company in Germany."
[1] For the reasoning behind this, see the quotes in my earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16512068
The article claims that they're doing it to protect themselves from future lawsuits, not as "revenge":
"Q: Why block all of Germany, rather than just those 18 books?
A: PGLAF's legal advisors disagree with all claims that there must be any blocking, or removal, or anything associated - censorship, fines/fees, disclaimers, etc. - for items that are in the public domain in the US. Period.[1]
Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books, there is every reason to think that this will keep happening. There are thousands of eBooks in the Project Gutenberg collection that could be subject to similar over-reaching and illigitimate actions.
PGLAF is a small volunteer organization, with no income (it doesn't sell anything), other than donations. There is every reason to fear that this huge corporation, with the backing of the German Court, will continue to take legal action. In fact, at least one other similar complaint arrived in 2017 about different books in the Project Gutenberg collection, from another company in Germany."
[1] For the reasoning behind this, see the quotes in my earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16512068
> The article claims that they're doing it to protect themselves from future lawsuits, not as "revenge":
Then the article is disingenuous, because the same copyright period and liabilities exist in most EU countries.
Singling out Germany because a German company was first to sue is pure revenge.
If they wanted to protect themselves, they would block the whole EU and a whole lot of countries outside the EU, not just Germany.
Then the article is disingenuous, because the same copyright period and liabilities exist in most EU countries.
Singling out Germany because a German company was first to sue is pure revenge.
If they wanted to protect themselves, they would block the whole EU and a whole lot of countries outside the EU, not just Germany.
> With publishing content in Germany (or whatever country) over Internet (or otherwise) they have crossed physical and legal borders.
This really goes to the fundamental nature of the internet and digital technology. Is it "push" whereby a web site "sends" the content to the visitor (therefore assumes the burden of copyright infringement, because they initiate a transfer out of their country into the visitor's) or is it "pull" where a visitor effectively goes to a country, gets the content and returns home, and the visitor is doing the international transfer and thus inheriting the liability of that?
To my mind the "pull" model is more persuasive because the visitor is clearly the agent in control of the transfer. This judgement seems to go against it though, and say that as a web site operator, you are the one doing the international transfer of the information.
This really goes to the fundamental nature of the internet and digital technology. Is it "push" whereby a web site "sends" the content to the visitor (therefore assumes the burden of copyright infringement, because they initiate a transfer out of their country into the visitor's) or is it "pull" where a visitor effectively goes to a country, gets the content and returns home, and the visitor is doing the international transfer and thus inheriting the liability of that?
To my mind the "pull" model is more persuasive because the visitor is clearly the agent in control of the transfer. This judgement seems to go against it though, and say that as a web site operator, you are the one doing the international transfer of the information.
That's quite ironic, Gutenberg was German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg
And he was from Mainz, which is only a 30 minute drive from where this court case was tried.
The crux of the argument seems to be whether German copyright applies to US websites served to German users; Project Gutenberg's view and the Court's view are below.
Project Gutenberg:
Q: So the court thinks that the presence of content in German means that courts in Germany have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that PGLAF is entirely in the US? A: Yes, that was the original basis of the claim for jurisdiction, which the Court accepted in their judgement. Since then, there some more recent decisions in the European Court of Justice, and other German courts, that support this theory based on a Web site being accessible from a country. Those other cases involve companies that actually operate (for-profit) in Europe, and cases between two European countries (i.e. part of the EU). They are not consistent with prior laws and cases, even in Europe, and also not consistent with provisions of the Berne Convention and other international law. In addition, PGLAF has pointed out that Germany is widely spoken in the US (the third-most common second language), and also is widely taught in schools and colleges. PGLAF has no actual presence or activity in Germany.
Court Decision:
Reasons for the decision The action is admissible and well founded. 1. The action is admissible. In particular, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main has international and local jurisdiction pursuant to § 32 ZPO (German Rules of Civil Procedure). According to § 32 ZPO, the court of the district where an unlawful act was committed has jurisdiction for suits brought against such acts. Unlawful acts within the meaning of § 32 ZPO also include copyright infringements. Along with local jurisdiction, this provision also governs the international jurisdiction of German courts. An unlawful act within the meaning of § 32 ZPO is deemed to have been committed both at the place where the offense was committed and at the place where the offense had its effect, so jurisdiction optionally applies to the place where the infringement was committed or where the legally protected interest was affected. A conclusive claim of facts substantiating an unlawful act committed within the judicial district is enough to establish jurisdiction. § 32 ZPO also covers claims for injunctive relief. Accordingto§32ZPO,ifacopyrightorrelatedpropertyrightisallegedlyinfringedby making the protected property publicly accessible via a website, the place where the unlawful act was committed isGermanyiftheassertedrightsareprotectedinGermanyand if the website is (also) publicly accessible in Germany. However, intended availability of the web presence in Germany (among other countries) is not a requirement (Federal Court of Justice, GRUR 2016, 1048, marginal number 18 - An Evening with Marlene Dietrich; cf. Regional Court of Hamburg, Judgment dated 06/19/2015 - 308 0 161/13, BeckRS 2015, 18942; Regional Court of Hamburg, Judgment dated 06/17/2016 - 308 0 161/13, BeckRS 2016, 12262). These requirements are met in this case, as the works in dispute which are protected in Germany are indisputably also available in Germany. Also, the plaintiff has convincingly argued that the availability has led to downloads in Germany. Apart from that, the first defendant’s website is also intended to target German users. This is supported by the fact that the website is partially in German, that the site offers German- language works, and that the first defendant explicitly strives to make the works available globally (“anyone anywhere”). This is not contradicted by the disclaimer in the first defendant’s website stating that users must verify if they are entitled to download the works in their respective countries. Rather, this disclaimer indicates that the defendants are aware that their website is also visited by users from other countries than the United States.
Project Gutenberg:
Q: So the court thinks that the presence of content in German means that courts in Germany have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that PGLAF is entirely in the US? A: Yes, that was the original basis of the claim for jurisdiction, which the Court accepted in their judgement. Since then, there some more recent decisions in the European Court of Justice, and other German courts, that support this theory based on a Web site being accessible from a country. Those other cases involve companies that actually operate (for-profit) in Europe, and cases between two European countries (i.e. part of the EU). They are not consistent with prior laws and cases, even in Europe, and also not consistent with provisions of the Berne Convention and other international law. In addition, PGLAF has pointed out that Germany is widely spoken in the US (the third-most common second language), and also is widely taught in schools and colleges. PGLAF has no actual presence or activity in Germany.
Court Decision:
Reasons for the decision The action is admissible and well founded. 1. The action is admissible. In particular, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main has international and local jurisdiction pursuant to § 32 ZPO (German Rules of Civil Procedure). According to § 32 ZPO, the court of the district where an unlawful act was committed has jurisdiction for suits brought against such acts. Unlawful acts within the meaning of § 32 ZPO also include copyright infringements. Along with local jurisdiction, this provision also governs the international jurisdiction of German courts. An unlawful act within the meaning of § 32 ZPO is deemed to have been committed both at the place where the offense was committed and at the place where the offense had its effect, so jurisdiction optionally applies to the place where the infringement was committed or where the legally protected interest was affected. A conclusive claim of facts substantiating an unlawful act committed within the judicial district is enough to establish jurisdiction. § 32 ZPO also covers claims for injunctive relief. Accordingto§32ZPO,ifacopyrightorrelatedpropertyrightisallegedlyinfringedby making the protected property publicly accessible via a website, the place where the unlawful act was committed isGermanyiftheassertedrightsareprotectedinGermanyand if the website is (also) publicly accessible in Germany. However, intended availability of the web presence in Germany (among other countries) is not a requirement (Federal Court of Justice, GRUR 2016, 1048, marginal number 18 - An Evening with Marlene Dietrich; cf. Regional Court of Hamburg, Judgment dated 06/19/2015 - 308 0 161/13, BeckRS 2015, 18942; Regional Court of Hamburg, Judgment dated 06/17/2016 - 308 0 161/13, BeckRS 2016, 12262). These requirements are met in this case, as the works in dispute which are protected in Germany are indisputably also available in Germany. Also, the plaintiff has convincingly argued that the availability has led to downloads in Germany. Apart from that, the first defendant’s website is also intended to target German users. This is supported by the fact that the website is partially in German, that the site offers German- language works, and that the first defendant explicitly strives to make the works available globally (“anyone anywhere”). This is not contradicted by the disclaimer in the first defendant’s website stating that users must verify if they are entitled to download the works in their respective countries. Rather, this disclaimer indicates that the defendants are aware that their website is also visited by users from other countries than the United States.
PG did exactly the right thing here.
By only blocking these 18 books, nobody would have taken much notice of this. By blocking all German users from the site, they will get a lot of media attention, and S. Fischer Verlag will get a lot of bad press. Whether or not they will move from their position is questionable, but it will hurt them.
Just sent a small donation to PG.
Making an effort not to buy books from that publishing house ever again, and telling all my friends about it.
By only blocking these 18 books, nobody would have taken much notice of this. By blocking all German users from the site, they will get a lot of media attention, and S. Fischer Verlag will get a lot of bad press. Whether or not they will move from their position is questionable, but it will hurt them.
Just sent a small donation to PG.
Making an effort not to buy books from that publishing house ever again, and telling all my friends about it.
> Making an effort not to buy books from that publishing house ever again, and telling all my friends about it.
Good luck with that. S. Fischer is owned by Holtzbrinck. They own Macmillan, Springer Nature and a bunch of other publishing houses. Here's a list of their subsidiaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group#S...
Good luck with that. S. Fischer is owned by Holtzbrinck. They own Macmillan, Springer Nature and a bunch of other publishing houses. Here's a list of their subsidiaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group#S...
Is it so uncommon for big companies to evaluate the performance of various divisions independently? If Holtzbrinck recognizes that S. Fischer's activities have caused that subsidiary to start losing money, they will probably modify their opinion. Why would they want to subsidize a losing bet using the profits from other divisions? The fact that two companies are owned by the same holding group does not really mean they are the "same" company, any more than two companies which are majority owned by the same private investors are the same company.
I would guess most of us outside Germany have no real contact with S. Fischer, but considerable dealings with Holtzbrinck's other subsidiaries.
S. Fischer isn't just a independent subsidiary. The company is run by Monika Schoeller (born Monika von Holtzbrinck). She and her brother own large parts of Holtzbrinck and she's listed as a partner and member of the supervisory board on Holtzbrinck's website. (Her brother, Stefan von Holtzbrinck, is the CEO.)
> Why would they want to subsidize a losing bet using the profits from other divisions?
Because owning S. Fischer, Rowohlt and Droemer Knaur means owning a large chunk of the german book market.
> Why would they want to subsidize a losing bet using the profits from other divisions?
Because owning S. Fischer, Rowohlt and Droemer Knaur means owning a large chunk of the german book market.
> Good luck with that.
Well, depending on the books, it may be easy to download the books online without buying them...
Well, depending on the books, it may be easy to download the books online without buying them...
If enough people stop buying from just Macmillan alone, that would have an impact.
Unfortunately, a significant portion of their business is in public education, where that isn't seen as an option.
Don't buy but pirate and share. Let's not block information only payment.
So the authors should work for free? That’s theft.
It's not theft. If you took away the bike of the author, that's theft.
The author will work for free if the boycott proceeds. This way his work can at least be seen.
The author probably got paid an amount for writing the book and then hands all rights over to the publisher. The publisher then prints it forever and takes the income from that. This is a guess based on working with other publishers though. Individual companies may differ.
No matter how much propaganda has told you otherwise, copyright violation is not theft.
Theft involves a physical loss by the victim. After a theft, the victim no longer has the stolen property. Would you consider it theft if someone looked at your car, and built an exact copy 1,000 miles away? Of course not! You still have your car.
Theft involves a physical loss by the victim. After a theft, the victim no longer has the stolen property. Would you consider it theft if someone looked at your car, and built an exact copy 1,000 miles away? Of course not! You still have your car.
That makes it easier to make an impact. Now that they own a considerable portion of the market, next time you're gonna buy some Macmillan book, just don't buy it, and instead find pdf through genlib or pirate bay.
For a second I thought you were talking about Paul Graham
But did they do the right thing by participating in a court that has no jurisdiction? Why would they participate in that? Doesn't participating extend legitimacy to the claims, and make one subject the outcome (including paying the legal fees when losing)?
No more so than if they didn't participate. It's generally suggested that if someone sues you in a jurisdiction that you care about, you show up to defend yourself. Otherwise you'll simply have summary judgement entered against you. Now, in this case since the plaintiffs won, it probably wouldn't have been any worse—and likely cheaper due to lower legal costs—but they couldn't know that going in.
They are appealing the decision.
> But did they do the right thing by participating in a court that has no jurisdiction?
Good question - I was wondering myself. What's stopping them from simply ignoring the ruling and walking away? It's certainly not Project Gutenberg's obligation to carry out a block ordered by a country they don't do any business in. And if anyone thinks it is, does that still apply if the court isn't a german one, but instead one from...let's say...the faroer islands? Nobody would care and I don't see why Project Gutenberg should in this case.
Good question - I was wondering myself. What's stopping them from simply ignoring the ruling and walking away? It's certainly not Project Gutenberg's obligation to carry out a block ordered by a country they don't do any business in. And if anyone thinks it is, does that still apply if the court isn't a german one, but instead one from...let's say...the faroer islands? Nobody would care and I don't see why Project Gutenberg should in this case.
Ignoring the order could result in personal liability of people involved in the project (as this is now a willful violation). Those people can then strike off Germany (and likely the EU and other countries) from the list of places to ever visit.
They can seize all assets within their reach (e.g. donations from Germans) but this would be a larger problem if the site would be a for-profit company with European customers. So the risk for the site to have the ruling actually enforced is lower than usual.
They can seize all assets within their reach (e.g. donations from Germans) but this would be a larger problem if the site would be a for-profit company with European customers. So the risk for the site to have the ruling actually enforced is lower than usual.
They own Apress, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_Nature
I just donated $100 to PGLAF because they are fighting the good fight. Their donation page [0] includes "Think of this as a contribution to your grandchildren." However in this instance I think of it as a contribution against publishers (ab)using the justice system much like so-called patent trolls.
> Q: The plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH. Is that the international conglomerate?
> A: Yes, it is part of a family of companies all under single ownership and control or majority stakeholdership, from Germany, reaching around the world. S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH is a unit of Verlagsgruppe Georg Holtzbrinck GmbH. Internationally it is known in the US and elsewhere as Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC. Readers in the US know this as Macmillan, which is one of the largest publishers in the US by revenue, and owns many familiar imprints. US readers might also recall that Macmillan was one of four companies accused by the US Dept. of Justice in 2012 of price fixing. The companies eventually settled the antitrust claims, including by giving credits to customers who had overpaid for eBooks.
[0] https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_N...
> Q: The plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH. Is that the international conglomerate?
> A: Yes, it is part of a family of companies all under single ownership and control or majority stakeholdership, from Germany, reaching around the world. S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH is a unit of Verlagsgruppe Georg Holtzbrinck GmbH. Internationally it is known in the US and elsewhere as Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC. Readers in the US know this as Macmillan, which is one of the largest publishers in the US by revenue, and owns many familiar imprints. US readers might also recall that Macmillan was one of four companies accused by the US Dept. of Justice in 2012 of price fixing. The companies eventually settled the antitrust claims, including by giving credits to customers who had overpaid for eBooks.
[0] https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_N...
I hope you don't mind that I take this opportunity to tell about he GFF, because it is very much related.
If you are European and care about freedom rights, there is now an equivalent to the EFF/ACLU, called the "Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte" (short GFF), which translates to "Society For Freedom Rights".
They are mostly lawyers fighting strategic court battles in one of the cheapest country to do so, which in Europe happens to be Germany. This is a cost-effective way to further the cause of human and freedom rights.
If you are upset about
* excessive surveillance
* anti-whistleblower laws
* laws against freedom of information
then consider joining, they need your support to do what they do: https://freiheitsrechte.org/join/
Disclaimer: I'm not involved with the GFF except as a paying member.
They are mostly lawyers fighting strategic court battles in one of the cheapest country to do so, which in Europe happens to be Germany. This is a cost-effective way to further the cause of human and freedom rights.
If you are upset about
* excessive surveillance
* anti-whistleblower laws
* laws against freedom of information
then consider joining, they need your support to do what they do: https://freiheitsrechte.org/join/
Disclaimer: I'm not involved with the GFF except as a paying member.
European Digital Rights EDRi is the closest equivalent to the EFF in Europe. EDRi is an association of civil and human rights organizations from across Europe. It has existed since 2002.
https://edri.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Digital_Rights
https://edri.org/members/ (EFF from USA is also a member)
GFF is more German centered organization. I don't know how it relates to other German organizations like https://digitalcourage.de/ and https://digitalegesellschaft.de/
https://edri.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Digital_Rights
https://edri.org/members/ (EFF from USA is also a member)
GFF is more German centered organization. I don't know how it relates to other German organizations like https://digitalcourage.de/ and https://digitalegesellschaft.de/
I have no idea why I never heard of them before, but this is the first time. Thanks!
Thanks for reminding me!
I donated to them last year, guess it's time for another one.
I donated to them last year, guess it's time for another one.
FabHK(1)
> However in this instance I think of it as a contribution against publishers (ab)using the justice system
Enforcing that Project Gutenberg actually respects german copyright law when offering service to german users is abusing the justice system? That's a surprising interpretation of these events, in my opinion.
Enforcing that Project Gutenberg actually respects german copyright law when offering service to german users is abusing the justice system? That's a surprising interpretation of these events, in my opinion.
> Enforcing that Project Gutenberg actually respects german copyright law when offering service to german users is abusing the justice system? That's a surprising interpretation of these events, in my opinion.
Being a US entity acting 100% legally under US law with no physical presence in Germany but somehow being required to comply with German laws seems a bit abusive to me, in my opinion.
Next time I go trolling because I have karma to burn I suppose I'll have to answer to German hate-speech laws?
Being a US entity acting 100% legally under US law with no physical presence in Germany but somehow being required to comply with German laws seems a bit abusive to me, in my opinion.
Next time I go trolling because I have karma to burn I suppose I'll have to answer to German hate-speech laws?
The "publishers" I was implicitly referring to was the plaintiff.
I can log in from Germany.
> The Court in Germany has promoted a theory that it has jurisdiction, mainly because the www.gutenberg.org site has some content in the German language.
Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg was a German citizen, certainly any site that takes his name submits to German laws!
Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg was a German citizen, certainly any site that takes his name submits to German laws!
I am completely confused by how this court order even works.
I am assuming that PGLAF is owned and operated in the US. "PGLAF has no actual presence or activity in Germany".
I suppose the Berne Convention allows US police to honor international court orders for copyright violation, but what's to stop a country from making a ridiculous law that extends the copyright length to 2100 years, creating court orders for the 1 billion people who own a Bible or other old text without paying license fees, and collecting all the money in the world?
I am assuming that PGLAF is owned and operated in the US. "PGLAF has no actual presence or activity in Germany".
I suppose the Berne Convention allows US police to honor international court orders for copyright violation, but what's to stop a country from making a ridiculous law that extends the copyright length to 2100 years, creating court orders for the 1 billion people who own a Bible or other old text without paying license fees, and collecting all the money in the world?
Isn’t publishing content over web to the public “activity in this country”? I think it is. The magical Internet allows actions in other countries without physical presence.
>what's to stop a country from making a ridiculous law that extends the copyright length to 2100 years, creating court orders for the 1 billion people who own a Bible or other old text without paying license fees, and collecting all the money in the world?
So, similarly of how nothing stopped the BS Copyright Term Extension Act itself -- and firms are policing and collecting money all around the world based on it?
So, similarly of how nothing stopped the BS Copyright Term Extension Act itself -- and firms are policing and collecting money all around the world based on it?
> law that extends the copyright length to 2100 years, creating court orders for the 1 billion people who own a Bible or other old text without paying license fees, and collecting all the money in the world?
Generally speaking: Nothing. Practically speaking: Impossibility to enforce unless you’re a major power. Look how american laws often get enforced world wide while North Korean law doesn’t practically matter.
Generally speaking: Nothing. Practically speaking: Impossibility to enforce unless you’re a major power. Look how american laws often get enforced world wide while North Korean law doesn’t practically matter.
This is a sincere question. What American laws are enforced outside the US?
as a first example that pops up in my head, google for Kim Dotcom
DMCA, computer fraud have been and are used to extradite non-US citizens to put them in front of a US court for crimes under US law. Regardless of it being a crime in the country where the suspect lives/did the hack.
I feel if the countries of the parties involved were reversed, it would be a much different situation. Although the content could be hosted in Germany, and aimed at a German audience, other parts of your infrastructure (e.g. domain names, SSL certificates, CDNs) are most likely controlled by US companies, so you do not have much choice in whether you follow US law.
FACTA, the dreaded E-8BEN form that I get to fill in every time I happen to have a US customer, copyright, see Kim Dotcom, access to emails stored by Microsoft Europe (though MS is fighting that).
Honestly, laws have always been enforced internationally, that’s why extradition treaties exist. The internet just makes it much much simpler to commit a crime on foreign soil.
Honestly, laws have always been enforced internationally, that’s why extradition treaties exist. The internet just makes it much much simpler to commit a crime on foreign soil.
It's pretty common for US copyright law to be enforced outside in the EU as the term can be longer (the US term can occasionally be longer if the author died at the correct time).
You said it yourself: the Berne Convention allows US police to honor international court orders. US still has soveriegnty over people residing in its jurisdiciton.
The Berne Convention is a treaty and doesn't work that way. (IIRC, it defines the periods in question; by putting the treaty, Germany is obligated to honor the (BC) copyrights on US-copyrighted works, but can apply its own to German copyrighted works.)
The US would not ratify a treaty that works the way you describe. One hopes.
The US would not ratify a treaty that works the way you describe. One hopes.
In the US, copyright protection is based on the number of years since publication.
PG should be careful about misinforming people. This statement is only true for books created before '78. Since then, in the US, copyright protection is also some years after the death of the author, except works for hire.
PG should be careful about misinforming people. This statement is only true for books created before '78. Since then, in the US, copyright protection is also some years after the death of the author, except works for hire.
It literally says this:
"in the US, copyright protection for works published prior to 1978 is based on the number of years since publication. "
Did they edit the page since you posted your comment 18 hours ago?
"in the US, copyright protection for works published prior to 1978 is based on the number of years since publication. "
Did they edit the page since you posted your comment 18 hours ago?
Yes, as I copy-pasted. The footer also says it was updated today.
Donated too. I haven't have a fantastic use of the project until now, but I do appreciate the effort, and the will to resist the bullies.
> "Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books, there is every reason to think that this will keep happening"
Why do German courts think they can overstep jurisdictions?
Why do German courts think they can overstep jurisdictions?
See, they think they don't.
From the court document:
> The action is admissible. In particular, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main has international and local jurisdiction pursuant to § 32 ZPO (German Rules of Civil Procedure). According to § 32 ZPO, the court of the district where an unlawful act was committed has jurisdiction for suits brought against such acts. Unlawful acts within the meaning of § 32 ZPO also include copyright infringements. Along with local jurisdiction, this provision also governs the international jurisdiction of German courts. An unlawful act within the meaning of § 32 ZPO is deemed to have been committed both at the place where the offense was committed and at the place where the offense had its effect, so jurisdiction optionally applies to the place where the infringement was committed or where the legally protected interest was affected. A conclusive claim of facts substantiating an unlawful act committed within the judicial district is enough to establish jurisdiction. § 32 ZPO also covers claims for injunctive relief. According to § 32 ZPO, if a copyright or related property right is allegedly infringed by making the protected property publicly accessible via a website, the place where the unlawful act was committed is Germany if the asserted rights are protected in Germany and if the website is (also) publicly accessible in Germany. However, intended availability of the web presence in Germany (among other countries) is not a requirement (...).
This - to me - is quite a funny piece of jurisdiction and probably one of the reasons why international mediation processes do exist.
From the court document:
> The action is admissible. In particular, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main has international and local jurisdiction pursuant to § 32 ZPO (German Rules of Civil Procedure). According to § 32 ZPO, the court of the district where an unlawful act was committed has jurisdiction for suits brought against such acts. Unlawful acts within the meaning of § 32 ZPO also include copyright infringements. Along with local jurisdiction, this provision also governs the international jurisdiction of German courts. An unlawful act within the meaning of § 32 ZPO is deemed to have been committed both at the place where the offense was committed and at the place where the offense had its effect, so jurisdiction optionally applies to the place where the infringement was committed or where the legally protected interest was affected. A conclusive claim of facts substantiating an unlawful act committed within the judicial district is enough to establish jurisdiction. § 32 ZPO also covers claims for injunctive relief. According to § 32 ZPO, if a copyright or related property right is allegedly infringed by making the protected property publicly accessible via a website, the place where the unlawful act was committed is Germany if the asserted rights are protected in Germany and if the website is (also) publicly accessible in Germany. However, intended availability of the web presence in Germany (among other countries) is not a requirement (...).
This - to me - is quite a funny piece of jurisdiction and probably one of the reasons why international mediation processes do exist.
Yet the plaintiff in this case rejected international mediation. They're hell bent on keeping this case in German court.
That’s odd.
I always thought it was „life + 70 years“ in the whole EU. (According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright...)
Here in Austria the law regarding copyright is pretty similar to Germany so it’s really interesting why no one has sued before.
Here in Austria the law regarding copyright is pretty similar to Germany so it’s really interesting why no one has sued before.
Well, "always" since about 1996 depending on the country, but yes, it is.
I am curious about what Project Gutenberg would do if this judgement was replicated in every country in the EU, which feels plausible.
I am curious about what Project Gutenberg would do if this judgement was replicated in every country in the EU, which feels plausible.
> "It also seeks punitive damages and fines."
But there is no such thing as punitive damages under German law?
But there is no such thing as punitive damages under German law?
They also claim
>Pay Court costs, assessed at 50% of total costs. This is estimated to be at least 50,000 Euros, but is not yet assessed.
which seems false. The court set the amount involved in this case to 100k€, which would incurr about 3k€ in court costs and around 5k€ for each sides lawyers.
50k€ of costs would only occur if they would fight this through to the surpreme court. They don't seem to want this though.
Regarding the punitive damages: You are correct, the court awarded them damages, no punitive damages, no fines.
>Pay Court costs, assessed at 50% of total costs. This is estimated to be at least 50,000 Euros, but is not yet assessed.
which seems false. The court set the amount involved in this case to 100k€, which would incurr about 3k€ in court costs and around 5k€ for each sides lawyers.
50k€ of costs would only occur if they would fight this through to the surpreme court. They don't seem to want this though.
Regarding the punitive damages: You are correct, the court awarded them damages, no punitive damages, no fines.
The pglaf document isn't the most accurate in general (eg. claiming that Germany has "life + 75" terms, while correctly calculating life + 70 right in the next sentence; or discussing that the 56 years rule will end in the US in 2034, since books published after 1978 are subject to life + 70 as well - I guess Gutenberg won't be able to publish a single new book between 2034 and 2048), so I guess the claims made were only about damages (even if pglaf might consider them "punitive") and fines.
"The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US"
Cute. Who cares about what US law may require?
Cute. Who cares about what US law may require?
Considering how much US patent law has been enforced abroad: most governments.
I do hope that these proceedings are forced to take place in the US, because that would set a precedent, however insignificant, that copyright does not apply in other countries.
I do hope that these proceedings are forced to take place in the US, because that would set a precedent, however insignificant, that copyright does not apply in other countries.
I hope that countries other than America still get to have their own court system. I certainly don't want America to have final say over everything in the world.
The company that's suing them operates in the US, so it would be subject to US law. From the article:
"Q: Why did this all take place in the German Court system, rather than the US - where Plaintiff does business as Macmillan, and PGLAF is based?
A: The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined."
And, as noted in the article, the German courts would also be bound by international copyright treaties to which Germany is a party.
"Q: Why did this all take place in the German Court system, rather than the US - where Plaintiff does business as Macmillan, and PGLAF is based?
A: The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined."
And, as noted in the article, the German courts would also be bound by international copyright treaties to which Germany is a party.
I’m really for open access to old books, but for playing devils advocate I can see the courts point:
International websites have to respect local laws. After all those are the only ones I can directly influence (by voting, etc.)
If we’d start to ignore this (even if it is in my advantage in this case), this means I have no influence any more on how companies are allowed to interact with me (which shouldn’t be the case in a democratic state)
It’s a hard decision as the internet is global and I don’t have a real solution, but I don’t think taking US (or any other) law as „the valid law on the Internet“ is helpful.
It’s a hard decision as the internet is global and I don’t have a real solution, but I don’t think taking US (or any other) law as „the valid law on the Internet“ is helpful.
> "International websites have to respect local laws."
German companies operating in the US need to respect US law. As the article noted:
"Q: Why did this all take place in the German Court system, rather than the US - where Plaintiff does business as Macmillan, and PGLAF is based?
A: The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined."
Also, German courts need to respect international law and treaties. As the article noted:
"Alternatively, international treaties - notably the Berne Convention and related treaties - provide mediation processes through the World Intellectual Property Organization. PGLAF offered to undergo this mediation process, and Plaintiff declined.
International treaties explicitly and unambiguously support PGLAF's legal guidance as described above: that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries. Plaintiff managed to find a German Court, and some precedents from Germany (and, after the lawsuit was filed, from the EU), which were willing to flaunt international treaties by developing a theory that PGLAF is under jurisdiction of the German Court system."
German companies operating in the US need to respect US law. As the article noted:
"Q: Why did this all take place in the German Court system, rather than the US - where Plaintiff does business as Macmillan, and PGLAF is based?
A: The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined."
Also, German courts need to respect international law and treaties. As the article noted:
"Alternatively, international treaties - notably the Berne Convention and related treaties - provide mediation processes through the World Intellectual Property Organization. PGLAF offered to undergo this mediation process, and Plaintiff declined.
International treaties explicitly and unambiguously support PGLAF's legal guidance as described above: that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries. Plaintiff managed to find a German Court, and some precedents from Germany (and, after the lawsuit was filed, from the EU), which were willing to flaunt international treaties by developing a theory that PGLAF is under jurisdiction of the German Court system."
I have to be blunt here, whomever is giving PGLAF legal advice here almost certainly did not advise that last paragraph, because there is abundant precedent that it's incorrect.
In addition, EU copyright harmonisation means that the publisher would succeed in this case in every country in the EU (or just getting the judgement from the German court carried up to the European court). Will PGLAF block the entire EU when that happens?
In addition, EU copyright harmonisation means that the publisher would succeed in this case in every country in the EU (or just getting the judgement from the German court carried up to the European court). Will PGLAF block the entire EU when that happens?
The reaction of blocking access to all of Project Gutenberg only for german users and not for european user strongly suggests rather a kneejerk reaction/retaliation than an abundance of caution on their part.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you there. Copyright across international borders is really complex but the only important factor can't be the country of origin. (This would obviously create copyright paradises and is generally unpractical)
If you publish a German book on a site with parts of it written in German either you will get problems with German copyright or the person downloading the content. Both solutions are problematic but only the former can be effective so this is what courts will decide in those cases. BTW I'm currently studying law in Germany and this is a lower local court and there will be a new trial at the Oberlandesgericht. Because of the importance of the case it would also be quite possible that a federal court will take a look at it in the end, so this is far from over.
If you publish a German book on a site with parts of it written in German either you will get problems with German copyright or the person downloading the content. Both solutions are problematic but only the former can be effective so this is what courts will decide in those cases. BTW I'm currently studying law in Germany and this is a lower local court and there will be a new trial at the Oberlandesgericht. Because of the importance of the case it would also be quite possible that a federal court will take a look at it in the end, so this is far from over.
What is a "German book"? A book in German? A book "owned" by a German?
Are you comfortable having United States laws apply to you because you are using a "United States web site" in English? (Actually, the latter doesn't matter; the US doesn't have an official language.)
Are you comfortable having United States laws apply to you because you are using a "United States web site" in English? (Actually, the latter doesn't matter; the US doesn't have an official language.)
> for playing devils advocate I can see the courts point: International websites have to respect local laws
I think this is an untenable position as it would mean that any website, published from any country, hosted on servers in any country, would have to abide by the laws of the world’s 193 countries.
Project Gutenberg’s argument is that they are only a US concern — everyone involved officially is in the US, and the site is hosted in the US.
This is distinct from, say, a company explicitly providing a service to customers in a particular country (cf GDPR).
And, to counter your point with an extreme example, it would mean that no-one is ever able to criticise the Thai monarch on any website in the world lest they be jailed under Thailand’s lèse majesté laws.
It’s one thing to say that an in-country website respect that country’s laws, it’s another entirely to say that any website hosted anywhere in the world must respect that country’s laws.
I think this is an untenable position as it would mean that any website, published from any country, hosted on servers in any country, would have to abide by the laws of the world’s 193 countries.
Project Gutenberg’s argument is that they are only a US concern — everyone involved officially is in the US, and the site is hosted in the US.
This is distinct from, say, a company explicitly providing a service to customers in a particular country (cf GDPR).
And, to counter your point with an extreme example, it would mean that no-one is ever able to criticise the Thai monarch on any website in the world lest they be jailed under Thailand’s lèse majesté laws.
It’s one thing to say that an in-country website respect that country’s laws, it’s another entirely to say that any website hosted anywhere in the world must respect that country’s laws.
I agree with you. Following every law is neither practical and in the case of censorship even counterproductive.
I just wanted to point out that the reaction of the court isn’t as entirely pointless as it may seem on first thought.
> I just wanted to point out that the reaction of the court isn’t as entirely pointless as it may seem on first thought.
And I think you’re right to do so!
Honestly, regarding the whole case, I think the court has erred in accepting the publisher’s argument that Project Gutenberg is a valid target for a lawsuit in Germany.
If the publisher wants the books removed it should sue in the US, if it wants to prevent access from Germany it should seek another local remedy.
And I think you’re right to do so!
Honestly, regarding the whole case, I think the court has erred in accepting the publisher’s argument that Project Gutenberg is a valid target for a lawsuit in Germany.
If the publisher wants the books removed it should sue in the US, if it wants to prevent access from Germany it should seek another local remedy.
They have no legal basis for the books being removed in the US, since they are in the public domain there. If they can't make German law stick, they have no recourse.
They can go for the ISPs, or push for some German law to restrict local access. Doesn't mean they should, though.
Again, said ISPs are US-based, and the only precedent for blocking in the US is DMCA, which considers these works public domain.
I'm referring to local ISPs that German users use to access the Internet. Presumably the court can order them to block access to resources.
PGLAF is incorporated in the US, their site is hosted in the US and their employees live in the US. Tell me again why they need to worry about the law of any country but the US?
It's up to the German courts/government to deny access to sites that break their laws, not try to impose their law on people outside their jurisdiction.
It's up to the German courts/government to deny access to sites that break their laws, not try to impose their law on people outside their jurisdiction.
You don‘t want to tell me that a US court would show any restraint if a non-US based person violated American copyright?
For many years, China felt no urge to follow international copyright agreements. It was popular in certain circles to buy pirated Chinese editions (in English) of textbooks because they were very cheap.
Likewise, Microsoft has long had problems with pirated versions of Windows. Further, DVDs and CDs....
The general response from US courts was, "eh, what can we do?"
Likewise, Microsoft has long had problems with pirated versions of Windows. Further, DVDs and CDs....
The general response from US courts was, "eh, what can we do?"
US rightsholders have been seriously abusing copyright outside of US borders. I personally am not okay with it.
If Germany's laws must be applied to a US business, then the US is prima facie not sovereign.
If Germany's laws must be applied to a US business, then the US is prima facie not sovereign.
I think you have a big shock coming about how international law works and applies to websites outside of their country.
> I think this is an untenable position as it would mean that any website, published from any country, hosted on servers in any country, would have to abide by the laws of the world’s 193 countries.
No. If you read the court order, they are arguing, that gutenberg.org is targeted at Germans. There are a few reason:
1. there's a link on the front page to view the site in German
2. there's a similar German project: http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/
3. Gutenberg was after all German and .org isn't .us
4. gutenberg.org was mentioned quite a lot in the German media
Also, let's not forget, that gutenberg.org was contacted about this in advance, multiple times.
So yeah: If you do a website and target a different country, ignore emails about legal issues from citizens of that country for months, you should start to think about respecting the laws of that country.
No. If you read the court order, they are arguing, that gutenberg.org is targeted at Germans. There are a few reason:
1. there's a link on the front page to view the site in German
2. there's a similar German project: http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/
3. Gutenberg was after all German and .org isn't .us
4. gutenberg.org was mentioned quite a lot in the German media
Also, let's not forget, that gutenberg.org was contacted about this in advance, multiple times.
So yeah: If you do a website and target a different country, ignore emails about legal issues from citizens of that country for months, you should start to think about respecting the laws of that country.
> If you do a website and target a different country, ignore emails about legal issues from citizens of that country for months, you should start to think about respecting the laws of that country.
Surprisingly then, why Doitsche Welle still exists without any lawsuit from abroad.
Surprisingly then, why Doitsche Welle still exists without any lawsuit from abroad.
Because all German speaking people reside in Germany right?
No, but most do. So translating to German and offering German books (pretty well known ones btw) should get you thinking about German laws for a moment.
Most speakers of German don't live in Germany.
There are roughly 200 million German speakers in the world, but only 82 million residents of Germany.
There are roughly 200 million German speakers in the world, but only 82 million residents of Germany.
Sure, you know what I mean though.
[deleted]
None of those pass muster.
1. There are plenty of German-speakers not living in Germany.
2. Is that organization somehow affiliated with project gutenberg? Or did it simply use the name, which gutenberg probably doesn't care to trademark and wouldn't have the funds to legally enforce anyway.
3. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us.
4. So all it takes to be subject to a country's courts is for that country's media to bring up your activities?
If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian countries' laws should be illegal, with those responsible subject to the authoritarian regimes' legal systems. That is untenable if you have an ounce of respect for free speech or liberal values or a free internet.
Apply the reasoning to the laws of certain Middle Eastern countries. China. North Korea.
1. There are plenty of German-speakers not living in Germany.
2. Is that organization somehow affiliated with project gutenberg? Or did it simply use the name, which gutenberg probably doesn't care to trademark and wouldn't have the funds to legally enforce anyway.
3. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us.
4. So all it takes to be subject to a country's courts is for that country's media to bring up your activities?
If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian countries' laws should be illegal, with those responsible subject to the authoritarian regimes' legal systems. That is untenable if you have an ounce of respect for free speech or liberal values or a free internet.
Apply the reasoning to the laws of certain Middle Eastern countries. China. North Korea.
Those points can't be picked apart like you did. They add up and make it reasonable to argue that gutenberg.org is very well known in Germany and that lots of Germans have downloaded the books in question. The copyright owners are still selling those here and have probably already lost sales due to this. They tried to contact gutenberg.org, but where ignored. This isn't about free speech amd censorship.
> If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian countries' laws should be illegal
illegal where?
> 3. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us.
I really didn't know. .de is very common in Germany.
> If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian countries' laws should be illegal
illegal where?
> 3. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us.
I really didn't know. .de is very common in Germany.
> illegal where?
On the internet, where project gutenberg is located. The argument put forward, that you repeated, implies just as much that someone could be prosecuted in a Chinese court for publishing a harsh (to the point of being illegal in China) criticism of China named freexinjiang.com, at least if the site included a Chinese version. And that, since it refers specifically to a Chinese province/area, would have at least some nexus to China, whereas Project Gutenberg has zero connection to Germany.
Arguing the connection by language (the fact that German-language books of note exist to be digitized does not imply a connection to Germany the country) or Gutenberg's biography (what does the nationality of Gutenberg the historical person have to do with anything? Is shakespeare.com subject to uk laws?) is insanity.
> I really didn't know [.us isn't commonly used]
I didn't realize how this might not be intuitive to people in other countries, so...
The U.S. mostly invented / was the testbed for the internet. It's standard in the U.S., and for almost any English-language website that's not seeking to be tied to a specific country of origin, to use .com .net or .org. I get that people in countries where English isn't official or where they're targeting the country's population as visitors will prefer .cc tlds either to indicate that their site targets that country's residents, or targets people who speak that country's primary language, but .us is not at all the norm in the USA; .com .net and .org generally serve that purpose, and .us is a distant fourth [1].
But, supposing .us were the primary domain used by U.S. organizations, even if Project Gutenberg didn't use .org but instead used a generic TLD, it would still have zero to do with Germany.
[1] It's actually 6th, behind .xyz and .info, but those two probably have a higher percentage of spammy junk websites and email domains, so .us might be fourth in domains that aren't junk ecommerce advertising sites.
On the internet, where project gutenberg is located. The argument put forward, that you repeated, implies just as much that someone could be prosecuted in a Chinese court for publishing a harsh (to the point of being illegal in China) criticism of China named freexinjiang.com, at least if the site included a Chinese version. And that, since it refers specifically to a Chinese province/area, would have at least some nexus to China, whereas Project Gutenberg has zero connection to Germany.
Arguing the connection by language (the fact that German-language books of note exist to be digitized does not imply a connection to Germany the country) or Gutenberg's biography (what does the nationality of Gutenberg the historical person have to do with anything? Is shakespeare.com subject to uk laws?) is insanity.
> I really didn't know [.us isn't commonly used]
I didn't realize how this might not be intuitive to people in other countries, so...
The U.S. mostly invented / was the testbed for the internet. It's standard in the U.S., and for almost any English-language website that's not seeking to be tied to a specific country of origin, to use .com .net or .org. I get that people in countries where English isn't official or where they're targeting the country's population as visitors will prefer .cc tlds either to indicate that their site targets that country's residents, or targets people who speak that country's primary language, but .us is not at all the norm in the USA; .com .net and .org generally serve that purpose, and .us is a distant fourth [1].
But, supposing .us were the primary domain used by U.S. organizations, even if Project Gutenberg didn't use .org but instead used a generic TLD, it would still have zero to do with Germany.
[1] It's actually 6th, behind .xyz and .info, but those two probably have a higher percentage of spammy junk websites and email domains, so .us might be fourth in domains that aren't junk ecommerce advertising sites.
> On the internet
I still don't understand what that means exactly.
> whereas Project Gutenberg has zero connection to Germany.
I disagree.
> what does the nationality of Gutenberg the historical person have to do with anything? Is shakespeare.com subject to uk laws?
There's a lot inbetween of
zero connection with country X
and
subject to it's law.
So regarding shakesbear.com: No, not necessarily.
I still don't understand what that means exactly.
> whereas Project Gutenberg has zero connection to Germany.
I disagree.
> what does the nationality of Gutenberg the historical person have to do with anything? Is shakespeare.com subject to uk laws?
There's a lot inbetween of
zero connection with country X
and
subject to it's law.
So regarding shakesbear.com: No, not necessarily.
> There's a lot inbetween
No, there isn't. Or are you saying Austria could have a greater claim of jurisdiction over Tesla because of its name?
Germany has no more "ownership" over the German language than England has over English.
No, there isn't. Or are you saying Austria could have a greater claim of jurisdiction over Tesla because of its name?
Germany has no more "ownership" over the German language than England has over English.
Are you really asserting that
a) anything in the German language falls under the jurisdiction of the German government, and that
b) a relationship bearing on legal jurisdiction between two otherwise completely unrelated entities can be created by otherwise unrelated third parties?
a) anything in the German language falls under the jurisdiction of the German government, and that
b) a relationship bearing on legal jurisdiction between two otherwise completely unrelated entities can be created by otherwise unrelated third parties?
Point a is covered under GDPR. If you have German on your website their courts have jurisdiction. The language is so vague that they will have jurisdiction over all the world when it comes to PI privacy laws.
That's...a little disturbing.
If you have German on your website their courts have jurisdiction.
Nope:
"In order to determine whether such a controller or processor is offering goods or services to data subjects who are in the Union, it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union. (...) the mere accessibility of the controller’s, processor’s or an intermediary’s website in the Union, of an email address or of other contact details, or the use of a language generally used in the third country where the controller is established, is insufficient to ascertain such intention" (emphasis mine)
As long as German is used in the country where PG is located - and it is - then it's not enough to show that they're targeting German citizens.
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-23/
Nope:
"In order to determine whether such a controller or processor is offering goods or services to data subjects who are in the Union, it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union. (...) the mere accessibility of the controller’s, processor’s or an intermediary’s website in the Union, of an email address or of other contact details, or the use of a language generally used in the third country where the controller is established, is insufficient to ascertain such intention" (emphasis mine)
As long as German is used in the country where PG is located - and it is - then it's not enough to show that they're targeting German citizens.
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-23/
a) No
b) What do you mean exactly?
b) What do you mean exactly?
> On the internet, where project gutenberg is located. The argument put forward, that you repeated, implies just as much that someone could be prosecuted in a Chinese court for publishing a harsh (to the point of being illegal in China) criticism of China named freexinjiang.com, at least if the site included a Chinese version. And that, since it refers specifically to a Chinese province/area, would have at least some nexus to China, whereas Project Gutenberg has zero connection to Germany.
You can be. A US court would be pretty reluctant to enforce it, but you can and always could.
You can be. A US court would be pretty reluctant to enforce it, but you can and always could.
> Those points can't be picked apart like you did. They add up
Others are doing a fine job of taking apart the specifics, but it's important to understand why this form of argument is itself a fallacy.
Inference works by taking into account new evidence and using it to adjust the probability with which you believe something to be true. So if you see Bob wearing a red shirt, you are more likely to believe that Bob owns a red shirt. Could still be that he has borrowed it or something, but it's now more likely he owns one than it was previously. By contrast, if you go all through Bob's bedroom and find zero red shirts, that makes it less likely, even though it's still possible he owns one that isn't in his bedroom.
The problem with allowing plaintiffs or prosecutors to play this game is that they can take the list of everything you've ever done, ignore everything that makes what they're trying to prove less likely and present only the list of things that make it more likely. If you look only at that evidence then each piece of it increases the probability that you believe what they want you to believe, regardless of whether it's actually true. How guilty they can make you look is directly proportional to their level of resources in finding things that make you look bad, independent of your actual guilt.
> I really didn't know. .de is very common in Germany.
Most countries have .co.uk, .org.uk, .net.uk, etc. The US doesn't have those. US companies use .com, .org, .net, etc. regardless that they're nominally not US-specific.
Others are doing a fine job of taking apart the specifics, but it's important to understand why this form of argument is itself a fallacy.
Inference works by taking into account new evidence and using it to adjust the probability with which you believe something to be true. So if you see Bob wearing a red shirt, you are more likely to believe that Bob owns a red shirt. Could still be that he has borrowed it or something, but it's now more likely he owns one than it was previously. By contrast, if you go all through Bob's bedroom and find zero red shirts, that makes it less likely, even though it's still possible he owns one that isn't in his bedroom.
The problem with allowing plaintiffs or prosecutors to play this game is that they can take the list of everything you've ever done, ignore everything that makes what they're trying to prove less likely and present only the list of things that make it more likely. If you look only at that evidence then each piece of it increases the probability that you believe what they want you to believe, regardless of whether it's actually true. How guilty they can make you look is directly proportional to their level of resources in finding things that make you look bad, independent of your actual guilt.
> I really didn't know. .de is very common in Germany.
Most countries have .co.uk, .org.uk, .net.uk, etc. The US doesn't have those. US companies use .com, .org, .net, etc. regardless that they're nominally not US-specific.
The US does have .us - it was actually the first ccTLD - and a complex hierarchy under it, it's just not commonly used for historical reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us
It's not commonly used because the hierarchy is weird. Originally the names had to be four deep, containing both the state and the locality, which is silly since all but the smallest operations span localities and even small companies often change locality. So they eventually allowed registrations directly at .us but there is still no .us equivalent to .org.uk.
> The problem with allowing plaintiffs or prosecutors to play this game is that they can take the list of everything you've ever done, ignore everything that makes what they're trying to prove less likely and present only the list of things that make it more likely. If you look only at that evidence then each piece of it increases the probability that you believe what they want you to believe, regardless of whether it's actually true.
Isn't there a defence? I also don't believe the court would like to find out that the prosecutor lied.
Isn't there a defence? I also don't believe the court would like to find out that the prosecutor lied.
> Isn't there a defence?
There is, but it's a resource battle. Governments and large corporations can spend a hundred times more hours on something than regular individuals and small nonprofits. If they both had the same resources there might be a 90% chance the defendant wins, but create a large enough resource asymmetry and it flips the other way.
This is one of the main reasons for the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal cases, but that doesn't apply to civil cases even when the plaintiff is 10,000 times the size of the defendant, and isn't enough in criminal cases where the defendant is relying on a criminally over-worked public defender and everything is greased to mass-produce guilty pleas and discourage trials.
> I also don't believe the court would like to find out that the prosecutor lied.
It isn't strictly lying, it's just not pointing out inconvenient facts.
Prosecutors can get into trouble for this when it's really damning, like not disclosing a witness who says it was somebody else, but that's separate from all the banality like the number of man hours they spent investigating you without finding anything before they could come up with what they're presenting.
There is, but it's a resource battle. Governments and large corporations can spend a hundred times more hours on something than regular individuals and small nonprofits. If they both had the same resources there might be a 90% chance the defendant wins, but create a large enough resource asymmetry and it flips the other way.
This is one of the main reasons for the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal cases, but that doesn't apply to civil cases even when the plaintiff is 10,000 times the size of the defendant, and isn't enough in criminal cases where the defendant is relying on a criminally over-worked public defender and everything is greased to mass-produce guilty pleas and discourage trials.
> I also don't believe the court would like to find out that the prosecutor lied.
It isn't strictly lying, it's just not pointing out inconvenient facts.
Prosecutors can get into trouble for this when it's really damning, like not disclosing a witness who says it was somebody else, but that's separate from all the banality like the number of man hours they spent investigating you without finding anything before they could come up with what they're presenting.
I see, thanks for the explanation.
> Is that organization somehow affiliated with project gutenberg? Or did it simply use the name, which gutenberg probably doesn't care to trademark and wouldn't have the funds to legally enforce anyway.
The failure to protect their trademark in Germany would actually demonstrate that they are not operating in Germany.
The failure to protect their trademark in Germany would actually demonstrate that they are not operating in Germany.
Without commenting on the other arguments-#3 seems ludicrous. Claiming that a country's local law applies to an institution in another country "because it's named after someone who lived in our territory" seems a pretty ethically and legally impotent argument. Especially when you consider that "Germany" in its current sense did not exist until many hundreds of years after Gutenberg died. Should modern French courts get to censor any global website using "Louis" in the domain? "Napoleon"? Or does it only apply to last names?
It was just a small point which might make German think "this is a website that is legal in Germany" or even "this is a website from an entity in Germany". But it isn't, it's a US website, legal in the US and illegal in Germany.
1) So? There are many German-speakers who live in the US and in other countries outside of Germany. There is a huge difference between "targeting" people who speak German and those who live in Germany.
2) So they should sue to block that one if they believe it is doing something wrong.
3) Huh? What possible difference does it make what country someone born in 1468 was born in? And, apparently it's a sad state of affairs in Germany today compared to the time of Gutenberg who actually did something to increase access to written materials.
4) So they should sue the German media for mentioning it. I'm pretty sure that the Project Gutenberg team can't stop the German media from mentioning their web site.
It's a US-based web site, with US-based staff, with no Germany-based connections or business. It's clear that it is outside the proper jurisdiction of German courts and that the only reason for reaching this decision is economically-driven corruption. The whole thing is embarrassing.
Or, you could ask every Germany-based web site to obey all the laws of every country in the world.
2) So they should sue to block that one if they believe it is doing something wrong.
3) Huh? What possible difference does it make what country someone born in 1468 was born in? And, apparently it's a sad state of affairs in Germany today compared to the time of Gutenberg who actually did something to increase access to written materials.
4) So they should sue the German media for mentioning it. I'm pretty sure that the Project Gutenberg team can't stop the German media from mentioning their web site.
It's a US-based web site, with US-based staff, with no Germany-based connections or business. It's clear that it is outside the proper jurisdiction of German courts and that the only reason for reaching this decision is economically-driven corruption. The whole thing is embarrassing.
Or, you could ask every Germany-based web site to obey all the laws of every country in the world.
1. The german language page is actually targeting Liechtenstein, not Germany.
2. Similar projects are not the actual project in question.
3. ICANN is not a governmental agency; filing for a particular TLD is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for belonging to a particular country's jurisdiction. Being named after a 15th century German is not an argument worthy of response.
4. Popularity in a country is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for that country to have jurisdiction over an organization.
2. Similar projects are not the actual project in question.
3. ICANN is not a governmental agency; filing for a particular TLD is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for belonging to a particular country's jurisdiction. Being named after a 15th century German is not an argument worthy of response.
4. Popularity in a country is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for that country to have jurisdiction over an organization.
"The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined.
"Alternatively, international treaties - notably the Berne Convention and related treaties - provide mediation processes through the World Intellectual Property Organization. PGLAF offered to undergo this mediation process, and Plaintiff declined."
"Alternatively, international treaties - notably the Berne Convention and related treaties - provide mediation processes through the World Intellectual Property Organization. PGLAF offered to undergo this mediation process, and Plaintiff declined."
On point 3 : The fact that the (original) Gutenberg is in germany is irrelevant. Gutenberg here refers to the Gutenberg bible, not the place.
And in any case are we now assigning global trademark rights to cities / countries for names used in their jurisdiction? To give an example, Budweiser would be subject to Czech jurisdiction, since it is named after a Czech town. This is not much of an argument.
And in any case are we now assigning global trademark rights to cities / countries for names used in their jurisdiction? To give an example, Budweiser would be subject to Czech jurisdiction, since it is named after a Czech town. This is not much of an argument.
So yeah: If you do a website and target a different country, ignore emails about legal issues from citizens of that country for months, you should start to think about respecting the laws of that country.
And once again we get this lie being said around here. You should really just be honest with your political comments and come out with what you really want to say.
And once again we get this lie being said around here. You should really just be honest with your political comments and come out with what you really want to say.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you want to imply that the prosecutor lied about this?
if we followed your reasoning, you are able to provide anything illegal at a website, simply by hosting it in a country which you dont really target (eg isle of man).
thus, courts must be able to ask for what they did in the case of gutenberg.
by the way i dont see the big problem, except if the fines were big (maybe they were like only 200 usd)
thus, courts must be able to ask for what they did in the case of gutenberg.
by the way i dont see the big problem, except if the fines were big (maybe they were like only 200 usd)
A German court has no authority to compel a US company to block a subset of IP addresses though. If they want to enforce domestic policy they only have the right to force domestic companies to perform the block (i.e, by requiring that all German ISPs block access to the site).
A website would need to comply with German laws iff they have operations in Germany.
A website would need to comply with German laws iff they have operations in Germany.
> This is distinct from, say, a company explicitly providing a service to customers in a particular country (cf GDPR).
In what ways do you think the GDPR is distinct from the laws in the present case? Let's say, for argument's sake, that gutenberg.org starts capturing PII about visitors and storing it without conforming to the GDPR. Do you think it would be fair for the EU to sue them and (attempt to) enforce their law? If so, why?
In what ways do you think the GDPR is distinct from the laws in the present case? Let's say, for argument's sake, that gutenberg.org starts capturing PII about visitors and storing it without conforming to the GDPR. Do you think it would be fair for the EU to sue them and (attempt to) enforce their law? If so, why?
Of course it would be fair. Because EU citizens would be harmed.
That‘s the duty of a state. Protect its citizens.
That‘s the duty of a state. Protect its citizens.
EU Citizens are harmed here! Those publishers are being denied income because a site is hosting content they hold German copyright for, for free!
(Starting with the caveat that I’m not hugely well-versed in the GDPR:)
I think that actively soliciting personal data from people (wherever they may be) and collecting or processing it entails a higher level of responsibility. The GDPR in that situation effectively says: if you want to collect or process data on EU citizens you have to follow some rules.
I don’t believe that simply publishing a document online, for anyone who may wish to see it, has that “active character.”
However, others have pointed out that offering the Gutenberg website in a German translation is a similar act. I do think this is arguable, and this point does appear in the court ruling:
> “Apart from that, the first defendant’s website is also intended to target German users. This is supported by the fact that the website is partially in German, that the site offers German-language works, and that the first defendant explicitly strives to make the works available globally” [from the English translation]
However, going back to my point earlier, my concern is with the idea of making the website “publicly accessible in Germany.” I think there is a disconnect here between the understanding of traditional publishing (where it takes effort to publish abroad) and internet publishing (where it takes effort to prevent access from abroad).
I worry about the chilling effect of such a ruling. Should I, out of an abundance of caution, only make my blog available to readers in the UK (where I am, and where my blog is hosted)? I think it is easy to see what the effects of such a ruling could be, and (take to their logical conclusion) would have a severely detrimental effect on information exchange via the internet.
I think that actively soliciting personal data from people (wherever they may be) and collecting or processing it entails a higher level of responsibility. The GDPR in that situation effectively says: if you want to collect or process data on EU citizens you have to follow some rules.
I don’t believe that simply publishing a document online, for anyone who may wish to see it, has that “active character.”
However, others have pointed out that offering the Gutenberg website in a German translation is a similar act. I do think this is arguable, and this point does appear in the court ruling:
> “Apart from that, the first defendant’s website is also intended to target German users. This is supported by the fact that the website is partially in German, that the site offers German-language works, and that the first defendant explicitly strives to make the works available globally” [from the English translation]
However, going back to my point earlier, my concern is with the idea of making the website “publicly accessible in Germany.” I think there is a disconnect here between the understanding of traditional publishing (where it takes effort to publish abroad) and internet publishing (where it takes effort to prevent access from abroad).
I worry about the chilling effect of such a ruling. Should I, out of an abundance of caution, only make my blog available to readers in the UK (where I am, and where my blog is hosted)? I think it is easy to see what the effects of such a ruling could be, and (take to their logical conclusion) would have a severely detrimental effect on information exchange via the internet.
(Thanks for the well-reasoned reply! I'll preface mine by saying that I'm not terribly well-versed in the GDPR either... and that's really part of the problem.)
AFAICT, the GDPR consider an IP address to be PII. So collecting visitor logs or sticking an analytics script on the page -- even without asking people to sign in or otherwise identify themselves -- would fall under the purview of the GDPR. I don't think doing such things should cross the line into "active character".
It's also a terrible idea to infer intent from offering translations in other languages. As another comment pointed out (I presume correctly) there are more German speakers outside Germany than there are within its borders. Why should trying to improve the accessibility of a web site by people around the world make one susceptible to the laws of a language's native country?
As you say, the implied end state is the real problem: do I now need to learn about the relevant laws of every country whose residents (or even citizens?) might visit my web site? That's regulation without representation, and should be resisted on principle IMHO. Or will every site need a standard disclaimer that it's only intended for residents of X?
Perhaps some creative lawyer will figure out how to add a clause to Terms of Use that shifts responsibility for damages incurred by exposure to extraterritorial laws to the offending (offended?) user, and we can have a detente through mutually assured destruction of dueling lawsuits. :)
And just to preempt any criticism from the European peanut gallery, I'm in favor of stronger privacy protections on the Internet but they need to be worked out and agreed on globally, not imposed unilaterally by claiming extraterritorial jurisdiction.
AFAICT, the GDPR consider an IP address to be PII. So collecting visitor logs or sticking an analytics script on the page -- even without asking people to sign in or otherwise identify themselves -- would fall under the purview of the GDPR. I don't think doing such things should cross the line into "active character".
It's also a terrible idea to infer intent from offering translations in other languages. As another comment pointed out (I presume correctly) there are more German speakers outside Germany than there are within its borders. Why should trying to improve the accessibility of a web site by people around the world make one susceptible to the laws of a language's native country?
As you say, the implied end state is the real problem: do I now need to learn about the relevant laws of every country whose residents (or even citizens?) might visit my web site? That's regulation without representation, and should be resisted on principle IMHO. Or will every site need a standard disclaimer that it's only intended for residents of X?
Perhaps some creative lawyer will figure out how to add a clause to Terms of Use that shifts responsibility for damages incurred by exposure to extraterritorial laws to the offending (offended?) user, and we can have a detente through mutually assured destruction of dueling lawsuits. :)
And just to preempt any criticism from the European peanut gallery, I'm in favor of stronger privacy protections on the Internet but they need to be worked out and agreed on globally, not imposed unilaterally by claiming extraterritorial jurisdiction.
This is the case, and has always been the case.
It is pretty common for people to sue international publications for libel in the UK under UK libel laws on the basis that the site has British readers.
The US decided to unilaterally breach it's treaty provisions on that front and doesn't enforce British libel judgements (you may think this is a good thing, but that is what actually happened), but notably if you ever visit the UK as an American publisher you're still liable...
It is pretty common for people to sue international publications for libel in the UK under UK libel laws on the basis that the site has British readers.
The US decided to unilaterally breach it's treaty provisions on that front and doesn't enforce British libel judgements (you may think this is a good thing, but that is what actually happened), but notably if you ever visit the UK as an American publisher you're still liable...
Yes, that’s a good point (and, as someone who works in newspapers, something I’m well acquainted with).
Perhaps my original comment was too simplistic; it is a thorny issue.
Perhaps my original comment was too simplistic; it is a thorny issue.
Most of our websites violate Chinese law. Do you think we'll ever be held liable? No, of course not.
All websites are, by the nature of the internet, international. But it is not really feasible for them to be held to any legal standard but those where they have servers, are incorporated, or do business.
All websites are, by the nature of the internet, international. But it is not really feasible for them to be held to any legal standard but those where they have servers, are incorporated, or do business.
Google does it. Wikipedia has local lawsuits.
I'd argue that this is part of the (unfortunate) reality of running a global project and, as commented elsewhere, the only safe option to avoid lawsuits is to pick a set of laws (US here), have lawyers for the same and .. restrict _everyone_ not under these laws to access the resource.
If you block Germany for different copyright laws, why not France? Poland? Canada? (My naive assumption is that these laws are not the same worldwide and differ in gazillion edgecases between countries, even if otherwise somewhat compatible. That assumption might be wrong of course. IANAL)
I'd argue that this is part of the (unfortunate) reality of running a global project and, as commented elsewhere, the only safe option to avoid lawsuits is to pick a set of laws (US here), have lawyers for the same and .. restrict _everyone_ not under these laws to access the resource.
If you block Germany for different copyright laws, why not France? Poland? Canada? (My naive assumption is that these laws are not the same worldwide and differ in gazillion edgecases between countries, even if otherwise somewhat compatible. That assumption might be wrong of course. IANAL)
> I think this is an untenable position as it would mean that any website, published from any country, hosted on servers in any country, would have to abide by the laws of the world’s 193 countries.
I disagree. The way we're going, the internet will be just like traditional trade. There will be ports and customs to bring things into your country, and if you want to host a site you'd only assume you're hosting it in your country.
It would be the death of the internet (are national internets still the internet? maybe some countries will remain relatively open), but the process began a long time ago.
It is caused by local interests who can control parliaments and courts, it is caused by national security interests and censorship requirements.
The fracturing of the internet. I wouldn't've guessed it would happen when I first logged in to slashdot many years ago, but I don't see it getting stopped.
I disagree. The way we're going, the internet will be just like traditional trade. There will be ports and customs to bring things into your country, and if you want to host a site you'd only assume you're hosting it in your country.
It would be the death of the internet (are national internets still the internet? maybe some countries will remain relatively open), but the process began a long time ago.
It is caused by local interests who can control parliaments and courts, it is caused by national security interests and censorship requirements.
The fracturing of the internet. I wouldn't've guessed it would happen when I first logged in to slashdot many years ago, but I don't see it getting stopped.
If your website breaks moral decency laws in Saudi Arabia, and a court there orders you to close your website, would you comply?
Look at it from another perspective - if a German court has a problem with German citizens breaking German law in Germany, it should perhaps pursue those citizens and judge them. A US website can't(and shouldn't) be breaking any German laws by existing in US - maybe you could make an argument that German people accessing the website from Germany are breaking German law, but that's not what the court is saying. The court is saying that because project Gutenberg hosts books in German, then Germany has the right to judge them - which is obviously bollocks, you can speak German or write in German without having anything to do with Germany, a country cannot own a language.
Look at it from another perspective - if a German court has a problem with German citizens breaking German law in Germany, it should perhaps pursue those citizens and judge them. A US website can't(and shouldn't) be breaking any German laws by existing in US - maybe you could make an argument that German people accessing the website from Germany are breaking German law, but that's not what the court is saying. The court is saying that because project Gutenberg hosts books in German, then Germany has the right to judge them - which is obviously bollocks, you can speak German or write in German without having anything to do with Germany, a country cannot own a language.
> If your website breaks moral decency laws in Saudi Arabia, and a court there orders you to close your website, would you comply?
Strawman, because we aren't talking about closing a website, but just blocking access from one country.
Regarding your example: Yes, I would comply and block access from Saudi Arabia to my website.
Strawman, because we aren't talking about closing a website, but just blocking access from one country.
Regarding your example: Yes, I would comply and block access from Saudi Arabia to my website.
But....why? In a certain way, it's just some random court from a country you've never been to ordering you to do something. Why would you comply. There are ways foreign entities and governments can pursue an American company through the American legal system - the plaintiff decided not to do that here and decided to go through the German system instead. Which is all fine and dandy, but I still don't understand why an American company with no legal presence in Germany should obey rulings of the German court.
> But....why? In a certain way, it's just some random court from a country you've never been to ordering you to do something. Why would you comply.
In the beginning (like it was in this case with gutenberg.org), it isn't a court order, but just an email, asking me if I could respect their local laws.
Books becoming public domain example: In Germany it's 75 years after the author's death, in the US some amount of years after the publication. Who am I to judge which approach is "right"?
Btw: We're suffering quite a lot here in Germany because of software patents in the US.
> Which is all fine and dandy, but I still don't understand why an American company with no legal presence in Germany should obey rulings of the German court.
Don't you consider a website in German, accessible from Germany, which looks totally legal for most Germans as some kind of legal presence in Germany?
In the beginning (like it was in this case with gutenberg.org), it isn't a court order, but just an email, asking me if I could respect their local laws.
Books becoming public domain example: In Germany it's 75 years after the author's death, in the US some amount of years after the publication. Who am I to judge which approach is "right"?
Btw: We're suffering quite a lot here in Germany because of software patents in the US.
> Which is all fine and dandy, but I still don't understand why an American company with no legal presence in Germany should obey rulings of the German court.
Don't you consider a website in German, accessible from Germany, which looks totally legal for most Germans as some kind of legal presence in Germany?
> Don't you consider a website in German, accessible from Germany, which looks totally legal for most Germans as some kind of legal presence in Germany?
No.
The site is created in some set of locations, and is hosted on servers in some set of locations. If none of those locations is in Germany, Germany has no personal jurisdiction.
(At least under US law, which is what counts when it comes to enforcing judgement against someone in the US.)
No.
The site is created in some set of locations, and is hosted on servers in some set of locations. If none of those locations is in Germany, Germany has no personal jurisdiction.
(At least under US law, which is what counts when it comes to enforcing judgement against someone in the US.)
But then German ISPs will be ordered to block the content in Germany. I don't know what's better, at least now the gutenberg.org frontpage is still accessible and theres an explanation which wouldn't be the case with an DNS block.
The German ISPs blocking the content is far better. In that case, Germans are living by German laws, and Americans are living by US laws. The alternative is to expect everyone to live by any law anywhere in the world, which is probably impossible in cases where things conflict.
> everyone to live by any law anywhere
The site is obly blocked in Germany.
The site is obly blocked in Germany.
Sure, but Germans having an issue with an American site just cost that American company €50,000 for no reason at all. I agree with the poster saying that if Germany had an issue with content they could have just blocked the website themselves.
The books being available for download for free might have cost a German company even more. So I wouldn't say "no reason at all".
Like I said before - there is a legal path for foreign companies to sue American companies under the American legal system. If the plaintiff could demonstrate loses due to actions by project Gutenberg, I'm 100% certain that an American court would have ruled in favour of the plaintiff. But this €50k isn't even going to the publisher - it's in fees to the German court system, which - in my opinion - could have been completely and totally ignored. So when I said "no reason at all" I meant that PG will now be paying €50k for something that they shouldn't be a part of.
By this logic the US has no jurisdiction to act against a child pornography website aimed at Americans, used by Americans, with pictures of American children, as long as the website is hosted in Russia, where child pornography remains legal (or any of the other countries where it's legal and/or authorities don't care).
Remember, this means that the FBI has no right to even investigate the persons involved in it. No jurisdiction means no investigation.
Remember, this means that the FBI has no right to even investigate the persons involved in it. No jurisdiction means no investigation.
Your example goes too far -- the FBI would absolutely have jurisdiction to investigate the appearance of American children on such a site, as well as to go after Americans who used the site, because that involves the commission of crimes on American soil.
> against a child pornography website
Oh sure they could investigate, I didn't express myself well enough. But they're not going to get much without internal server data. They wouldn't be able to undertake any action against the site, much like American officers can't come to Russia to arrest suspects. They would be wholly dependent on cooperation with local authorities, who wouldn't care at all because it's not illegal in Russia.
There's no reason to obey a foreign order, as long as (1) your jurisdiction's authority doesn't extradite, and (2) you never enter the reach of jurisdiction you offended,
Do you have immense respect for Saudi Arabia's legal system, or fear of recourse from them? Do you just enjoy being subjugated?
If a country doesn't like my site, they're free to block it themselves instead of compelling me to.
If a country doesn't like my site, they're free to block it themselves instead of compelling me to.
I would think that if Saudi Arabia can't access my website, it's their loss, not mine ;)
Confusing the government of a country with its residents, especially a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia, is a harmful error. Sure, it's not your loss, but it's not their loss either -- it's innocent 3rd party's loss.
At some point, the residents of a country are responsible for its government. The inverse of the "consent of the governed" principle.
Saudi Arabia is run by a king. Its citizens don't get to vote them out of office. They are ruled by a dictator and many of them do NOT consent to being governed by the dictator.
Just because they'd get slaughtered in a revolt and don't have the ability to overthrow the king, doesn't mean that they have consented to the actions of the unelected people ruling over them.
Just because they'd get slaughtered in a revolt and don't have the ability to overthrow the king, doesn't mean that they have consented to the actions of the unelected people ruling over them.
https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/gutenberg-lawsuit-judgement-E...
"The defendants are ordered, on penalty of an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to 6 months, for each case of non- compliance, said imprisonment to be imposed on the second defendant, to cease and desist from making the following works publicly available or letting them be made publicly available, namely:..."
"The defendants are ordered, on penalty of an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to 6 months, for each case of non- compliance, said imprisonment to be imposed on the second defendant, to cease and desist from making the following works publicly available or letting them be made publicly available, namely:..."
There is the idea of universal jurisdiction for certain crimes, but it's usually stuff like genocide and really nasty stuff, not copyright infringement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
barry-cotter(1)
Yes - Israel used this rather famously on ex-Nazis that they "extralegally imported" from around the world, even though a) the accused was not an Israeli citizen, b) none of the victims were Israeli citizens at the time of the crime, c) the crimes did not occur on Israeli territory. In most other cases those would be major jurisdictional issues.
> I can see the courts point: International websites have to respect local laws
No, they don’t, and shouldn’t.
I’m free to offend the sensibilities of China, disgrace the Ayatollah, and violate a wide variety of other “local laws” from the comfort of my home or workplace.
If those places don’t like it, they’re also free to censor content until such time that their populace won’t tolerate it any longer.
No, they don’t, and shouldn’t.
I’m free to offend the sensibilities of China, disgrace the Ayatollah, and violate a wide variety of other “local laws” from the comfort of my home or workplace.
If those places don’t like it, they’re also free to censor content until such time that their populace won’t tolerate it any longer.
[deleted]
But they had to wait for him to enter US soil
Not only that, but his company was taking bets from US citizens, which is a much stronger argument for presence in a territory than simply "your website is accessible to our citizens."
> International websites have to respect local laws.
No way.
If I, a US citizen, publish a website hosted in the US that is critical of the Turkish president, should a Turkish court be able to compel me to take it down or block access from Turkey?
What if I'm Israeli and I publish open source software, source and binary hosted in Israel, that is against US hacking laws. Should a US court be able to order an Israeli to stop doing something that is legal in Israel?
(Both of these are hypothetical, I don't know if there are such laws.)
If I have no business in a country (or pseudo country like EU) they should have no jurisdiction over me. I shouldn't have to comply with every crazy authoritarian, free speech suppressing, restricted use country in the world.
If countries want to prosecute their own citizens for visiting my site, consuming my content, or using my software, that is their business.
Now if I do business in that country... that is different, then they might have some legal jurisdiction over me.
No way.
If I, a US citizen, publish a website hosted in the US that is critical of the Turkish president, should a Turkish court be able to compel me to take it down or block access from Turkey?
What if I'm Israeli and I publish open source software, source and binary hosted in Israel, that is against US hacking laws. Should a US court be able to order an Israeli to stop doing something that is legal in Israel?
(Both of these are hypothetical, I don't know if there are such laws.)
If I have no business in a country (or pseudo country like EU) they should have no jurisdiction over me. I shouldn't have to comply with every crazy authoritarian, free speech suppressing, restricted use country in the world.
If countries want to prosecute their own citizens for visiting my site, consuming my content, or using my software, that is their business.
Now if I do business in that country... that is different, then they might have some legal jurisdiction over me.
Another example:
If you're in a country where child pornography is legal, should all other countries just accept it?
If you're in a country where doxxing is legal, should the victims not be able to do anything against it?
If you're in a country where child pornography is legal, should all other countries just accept it?
If you're in a country where doxxing is legal, should the victims not be able to do anything against it?
Other countries can try to block that content, or they can try to punish their own residents for viewing it.
Why would residents of the permissive country comply with a foreign court order?
Why would residents of the permissive country comply with a foreign court order?
> Other countries can try to block that content
Opens the door for censorship.
> they can try to punish their own residents for viewing it.
Impossible without more surveillance
> Why would residents of the permissive country comply with a foreign court order?
Let's say you want to travel to the country at some point in the future.
Opens the door for censorship.
> they can try to punish their own residents for viewing it.
Impossible without more surveillance
> Why would residents of the permissive country comply with a foreign court order?
Let's say you want to travel to the country at some point in the future.
> try to block
Excellent phrasing. They can try. And they'll fail. Blocking is trivially easy to avoid and circumvent. As long as there's no jurisdiction, a country can't take any action against a criminal site, it can only take steps to protect its population from harmful outside influence, which is by blocking. The offenders remain free and often unidentified.
But when there is jurisdiction, a country can take offensive action. It gives legal ground to investigate the involved persons, it gives permission to hack the website, it gives permission to hijack it and replace it by honeypots. It gives the weapons to not just temporarily silence criminals, but to destroy their enterprise and bring them to justice.
Remote jurisdiction is the base of modern countermeasures against websites and servers involved in drugs, child pornography, terrorism, and human trafficking. Without it, the only logical way to protect your population is to erect deep-scanning firewalls and abolishing free traffic across national networks, much like China and Iran are doing.
Excellent phrasing. They can try. And they'll fail. Blocking is trivially easy to avoid and circumvent. As long as there's no jurisdiction, a country can't take any action against a criminal site, it can only take steps to protect its population from harmful outside influence, which is by blocking. The offenders remain free and often unidentified.
But when there is jurisdiction, a country can take offensive action. It gives legal ground to investigate the involved persons, it gives permission to hack the website, it gives permission to hijack it and replace it by honeypots. It gives the weapons to not just temporarily silence criminals, but to destroy their enterprise and bring them to justice.
Remote jurisdiction is the base of modern countermeasures against websites and servers involved in drugs, child pornography, terrorism, and human trafficking. Without it, the only logical way to protect your population is to erect deep-scanning firewalls and abolishing free traffic across national networks, much like China and Iran are doing.
> But when there is jurisdiction, a country can take offensive action.
That isn't what jurisdiction means. You're describing the digital equivalent of covert operations in a foreign country.
> Without it, the only logical way to protect your population is to erect deep-scanning firewalls and abolishing free traffic across national networks, much like China and Iran are doing.
It would work perfectly well to publish free open source scanning software and allow your citizens to voluntarily use it if they want to be "protected" from such things.
Unless your citizens are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but in that case you haven't got a jurisdictional problem.
That isn't what jurisdiction means. You're describing the digital equivalent of covert operations in a foreign country.
> Without it, the only logical way to protect your population is to erect deep-scanning firewalls and abolishing free traffic across national networks, much like China and Iran are doing.
It would work perfectly well to publish free open source scanning software and allow your citizens to voluntarily use it if they want to be "protected" from such things.
Unless your citizens are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but in that case you haven't got a jurisdictional problem.
Covert operations are by definition extra-judicial. They knowingly break laws and international agreements and rely on diplomacy to take care of it later. That's not what's happening with offensive action against criminal sites. If you run a gambling website on a local server without a proper permit in many countries, you'll get sued first. If you don't take down the website when a judge orders you to, police will try to move on to confiscating the server (with a warrant) and/or blocking access (with a warrant). If you evade those measures, eventually computer crime units will move on to hacking into your server (with a warrant) to locate and disable it. It's simple enforcement of the law. Hacking is an extreme measure, but not extra-judicial. Even when servers are abroad and regular confiscation isn't an option, often local law enforcement will seize servers on behalf of foreign jurisdiction. Only when local police is unwilling to cooperate will hacking be used. And it's used all the time, with the appropriate warrants and within the bounds of law. Don't conflate this with NSA hacking which is very extra-judicial and most definitely illegal.
The notion of "voluntary protection" is ridiculous. "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected." Law enforcement isn't only supposed to protect citizens, but also to combat criminality. Many materials are treated very differently whether you're a consumer or distributor. If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection.
The notion of "voluntary protection" is ridiculous. "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected." Law enforcement isn't only supposed to protect citizens, but also to combat criminality. Many materials are treated very differently whether you're a consumer or distributor. If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection.
> Covert operations are by definition extra-judicial.
Might want to take that up the the military judges who make decisions about them all the time.
They're extra-judicial in the target countries, but so is what you want to do.
> It's simple enforcement of the law.
It's law enforcement taking action in a foreign country without that country's permission. In violation of their laws.
You're saying it's OK for the US to hack a gambling site hosted in a foreign country because it's illegal in the US. How does that not justify China hacking a pro-democracy website hosted in the US because it's illegal in China?
> "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected."
The US State Department does exactly that when the area of drug violence is in another country. What are they supposed to do? Invade?
> If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection.
People have been placing illegal bets by mail since the invention of mail. That has never justified the government in reading everybody's mail, much less bombing Ireland after their local law enforcement doesn't put a stop to it.
Might want to take that up the the military judges who make decisions about them all the time.
They're extra-judicial in the target countries, but so is what you want to do.
> It's simple enforcement of the law.
It's law enforcement taking action in a foreign country without that country's permission. In violation of their laws.
You're saying it's OK for the US to hack a gambling site hosted in a foreign country because it's illegal in the US. How does that not justify China hacking a pro-democracy website hosted in the US because it's illegal in China?
> "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected."
The US State Department does exactly that when the area of drug violence is in another country. What are they supposed to do? Invade?
> If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection.
People have been placing illegal bets by mail since the invention of mail. That has never justified the government in reading everybody's mail, much less bombing Ireland after their local law enforcement doesn't put a stop to it.
> If you're in a country where child pornography is legal, should all other countries just accept it?
Yes.
> If you're in a country where doxxing is legal, should the victims not be able to do anything against it?
No.
Yes.
> If you're in a country where doxxing is legal, should the victims not be able to do anything against it?
No.
> If you're in a country where child pornography is legal, should all other countries just accept it?
No, they could try to convince the country to change it laws. Maybe if they think the issue is important enough blockade the country. Maybe even with help of other countries that have the same idea about the problem. But they can't prosecute a citizen of that country for doing anything legal in that country. It's possible to try to change the other countries laws using diplomacy.
No, they could try to convince the country to change it laws. Maybe if they think the issue is important enough blockade the country. Maybe even with help of other countries that have the same idea about the problem. But they can't prosecute a citizen of that country for doing anything legal in that country. It's possible to try to change the other countries laws using diplomacy.
Yes and yes.
Other countries can ban their citizens from accessing the child porn. They cannot ban a citizen of another country from hosting said porn if it's legal there.
This is obvious. Whether it's about porn, dissident political opinions or my cooking blog makes no difference.
Repeat after me: your country has no right to order citizens of other countries who live outside of your country to do anything. And vice versa, of course.
On a more personal note, here - a bit east from you - there was a time when your government could order people around, and it did. We don't want to repeat that, which is what you're calling for. There's a lot of blood behind some countries becoming independent. Show some respect for that.
That some countries could use their independence to allow child porn is unfortunate. I still won't support invading them over it. You need to realize that you're arguing for just that - infringing their independence - just without the tanks entering the picture (for now). Honestly, stop that. There are still people alive who remember the last time your folks did that. At the very least, let those people die out before doing it again.
Other countries can ban their citizens from accessing the child porn. They cannot ban a citizen of another country from hosting said porn if it's legal there.
This is obvious. Whether it's about porn, dissident political opinions or my cooking blog makes no difference.
Repeat after me: your country has no right to order citizens of other countries who live outside of your country to do anything. And vice versa, of course.
On a more personal note, here - a bit east from you - there was a time when your government could order people around, and it did. We don't want to repeat that, which is what you're calling for. There's a lot of blood behind some countries becoming independent. Show some respect for that.
That some countries could use their independence to allow child porn is unfortunate. I still won't support invading them over it. You need to realize that you're arguing for just that - infringing their independence - just without the tanks entering the picture (for now). Honestly, stop that. There are still people alive who remember the last time your folks did that. At the very least, let those people die out before doing it again.
> They cannot ban a citizen of another country from hosting said porn if it's legal there.
That's not what's happening though, gutenberg.org was only ordered to make the 18 books not accessible from German IPs. No one talked about a hosting ban.
That's not what's happening though, gutenberg.org was only ordered to make the 18 books not accessible from German IPs. No one talked about a hosting ban.
The rule is: you can't, in any way, compel citizens of other countries living outside your country to do anything. You really shouldn't even try, unless it's with the cooperation with the other country (just fill a lawsuit there!).
If you do try, it's a straight path to extraordinary renditions, drone strikes, assassinations and other such joyous things. I'm not saying that it has to lead to this, but it could, it did in the past, and we've instituted a rule to prevent that. Please, honor the rules we've all agreed upon!
Now, back to the issue in question. If you put a site on the Internet, you're by default giving access to it to everyone - you need to put some effort into it to make filtering traffic possible. It doesn't matter how much effort is needed - just that you have to do something.
This court order tries to compel PG to do that "something". It doesn't matter, at all, how many books are involved. It doesn't matter that it's "just for German IPs". It doesn't matter how easy it is to implement. What's important is that the court tries to compel citizens of another country to do something. No matter how small it is, it's simply wrong. It shouldn't happen!
The court could force ISPs in its country to filter traffic so that you can't access those books. It could make filtering these books to be hardcoded in home routers and public access points. It could, for all I care, ban the Internet in its entirety - inside your country. It cannot, and should not even try, to force PG to do anything.
Now, there are exceptions to everything, established precedents, international agreements - I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if there's a legal argument which would allow the interference in other country affairs in this case. What I'm saying is that such interference, as a rule, is not allowed, supporting it should be viewed with suspicion and every argument presented should be very carefully scrutinized and verified.
Again, as a rule, you don't force foreigners who never set foot on your soil to do anything. Infringing on another country sovereignty is simply a no-go (unless you have a lot of nukes, apparently, but I digress). Why is it hard to understand?
If you do try, it's a straight path to extraordinary renditions, drone strikes, assassinations and other such joyous things. I'm not saying that it has to lead to this, but it could, it did in the past, and we've instituted a rule to prevent that. Please, honor the rules we've all agreed upon!
Now, back to the issue in question. If you put a site on the Internet, you're by default giving access to it to everyone - you need to put some effort into it to make filtering traffic possible. It doesn't matter how much effort is needed - just that you have to do something.
This court order tries to compel PG to do that "something". It doesn't matter, at all, how many books are involved. It doesn't matter that it's "just for German IPs". It doesn't matter how easy it is to implement. What's important is that the court tries to compel citizens of another country to do something. No matter how small it is, it's simply wrong. It shouldn't happen!
The court could force ISPs in its country to filter traffic so that you can't access those books. It could make filtering these books to be hardcoded in home routers and public access points. It could, for all I care, ban the Internet in its entirety - inside your country. It cannot, and should not even try, to force PG to do anything.
Now, there are exceptions to everything, established precedents, international agreements - I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if there's a legal argument which would allow the interference in other country affairs in this case. What I'm saying is that such interference, as a rule, is not allowed, supporting it should be viewed with suspicion and every argument presented should be very carefully scrutinized and verified.
Again, as a rule, you don't force foreigners who never set foot on your soil to do anything. Infringing on another country sovereignty is simply a no-go (unless you have a lot of nukes, apparently, but I digress). Why is it hard to understand?
> If you do try, it's a straight path to extraordinary renditions, drone strikes, assassinations and other such joyous things. I'm not saying that it has to lead to this, but it could, it did in the past, and we've instituted a rule to prevent that.
Could you elaborate?
Could you elaborate?
If you have Turkish users, you ARE doing business in Turkey. That's obvious.
If you operate a bookstore in New York City, you are doing business in the US and not Turkey. That is true even if someone from Turkey comes into your bookstore, buys one of your books and takes it home with them to Turkey.
Why should the internet be any different?
Why should the internet be any different?
Well bad news. The world doesn't and has never worked in the way you want it to.
Countries generally find enforcing their laws against entities with nothing inside their borders at all a bit more hassle than it's worth, but it has never, ever been the case that they can't.
Countries generally find enforcing their laws against entities with nothing inside their borders at all a bit more hassle than it's worth, but it has never, ever been the case that they can't.
[deleted]
What is it that distinguishes a web site from an international web site?
Do you feel that laws on web site content passed in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Vietnam should apply to web sites created or operated by you or posts made by you on line? Would you expect yourself and other global posters and journalists to be bound, for example, by Thailand’s Lese Majeste laws on criticism or comment related to their king?
Do you feel that laws on web site content passed in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Vietnam should apply to web sites created or operated by you or posts made by you on line? Would you expect yourself and other global posters and journalists to be bound, for example, by Thailand’s Lese Majeste laws on criticism or comment related to their king?
gutenberg.org has a link to view it in German on the front page. I guess if you provide several translations and use a top level domain like .org, you are more likely an international web site than an English-only .us web site.
All websites that are not intentionally blocked from specific regions by the website operator, a government or internet service providers are available everywhere in the world. English is the world's most spoken language. In effect, most websites are international websites.
That doesn't make them subject to the laws of every country. Most legal systems do not accept the standard the German court used and require a more significant physical, legal or economic connection to a country before a website may be subject to its laws.
That doesn't make them subject to the laws of every country. Most legal systems do not accept the standard the German court used and require a more significant physical, legal or economic connection to a country before a website may be subject to its laws.
That's why the reasoning of the court went beyond "It's an international website".
But it did not use reasoning that courts in most other parts of the world accept, including the US coults it would have to ask to enforce its judgement in the absence of voluntary compliance.
PGLAF appears to be complying because it wants to win an appeal in German court, which might be compromised by ignoring the ruling of a lower German court. If PGLAF decided to ignore the ruling, there would likely be no consequences.
PGLAF appears to be complying because it wants to win an appeal in German court, which might be compromised by ignoring the ruling of a lower German court. If PGLAF decided to ignore the ruling, there would likely be no consequences.
German is spoken in countries other than Germany: looking at only countries where the German language enjoys some form of official or co-official status, we have Germany (of course), Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Denmark, Hungary, Italy, and Poland also formally recognise German as a minority language.
That's not to mention the countless expats/second language speakers around the world.
Having a German language version of your website/product is by no means equivalent to being subject to the jurisdiction of Germany the country.
That's not to mention the countless expats/second language speakers around the world.
Having a German language version of your website/product is by no means equivalent to being subject to the jurisdiction of Germany the country.
> Having a German language version of your website/product is by no means equivalent to being subject to the jurisdiction of Germany the country.
Never said that.
Never said that.
Generally speaking, no, you only have to follow the laws of the county where you are resident. I don't know why Project Gutenberg is taking any notice of the court case at all, although it probably should warn its contributors not to work on projects that aren't yet public domain in their own countries, to avoid any risk of legal action.
In this case the legal situation seems clear. The case is about several books written by Heinrich Mann, Thomas Mann and Alfred Döblin, who died less than 70 years ago, and all their works are still in copyright in Germany. However, copyright law in the US is more complex, and their works published before 1923 are public domain there.
Project Gutenberg has every right to publish these works from a web server located in the United States. If Germany doesn't like it, it can order that Gutenberg's website be blocked, like is already done with sites like The Pirate Bay in many countries, and with many other sites in restrictive countries like China.
In this case the legal situation seems clear. The case is about several books written by Heinrich Mann, Thomas Mann and Alfred Döblin, who died less than 70 years ago, and all their works are still in copyright in Germany. However, copyright law in the US is more complex, and their works published before 1923 are public domain there.
Project Gutenberg has every right to publish these works from a web server located in the United States. If Germany doesn't like it, it can order that Gutenberg's website be blocked, like is already done with sites like The Pirate Bay in many countries, and with many other sites in restrictive countries like China.
The court decision in question, in part, says,
"The defendants are ordered, on penalty of an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to 6 months, for each case of non- compliance, said imprisonment to be imposed on the second defendant, to cease and desist from making the following works publicly available or letting them be made publicly available, namely:..."
The court has not ordered the site blocked, but the texts in question taken down.
"The defendants are ordered, on penalty of an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to 6 months, for each case of non- compliance, said imprisonment to be imposed on the second defendant, to cease and desist from making the following works publicly available or letting them be made publicly available, namely:..."
The court has not ordered the site blocked, but the texts in question taken down.
Sure, but if the defendants don't have any interests in Germany, how would the claim be enforced?
International websites have to respect local laws
I keep on seeing this type of political agenda comments parroted around HN lately, when everybody knows it's not true.
It's not a german website and absolutely does not have to respect German law.
I keep on seeing this type of political agenda comments parroted around HN lately, when everybody knows it's not true.
It's not a german website and absolutely does not have to respect German law.
There is an established treaty for handling this particular issue. The court in question has decided not to follow that treaty.
Could you be more specific?
The Berne Convention specifies minimum copyright provisions (equivalent to current US and German practice, IIUC), requires other countries to protect works as strongly as their own, and describes how to resolve conflicts (WIPA).
Only if you really don't like the idea of the Internet should you advocate for that kind of thing. If every website would have to comply with every country's laws this would immediately lead to almost complete segregation of the Internet. Why should anybody take the risks of making their websites internationally available? It's hard enough to ensure that your website complies with your own country's laws. It's impossible to do that for every country.
If a country doesn't like what a website provides they are free to block it at the border, just like with physical goods.
If a country doesn't like what a website provides they are free to block it at the border, just like with physical goods.
> International websites have to respect local laws.
What does "local laws" mean? Laws local to me and the website I run? Sure.
Laws local to someone in the world (aka laws non-local to me)? No I'm not going to obey Chinese laws.
What does "local laws" mean? Laws local to me and the website I run? Sure.
Laws local to someone in the world (aka laws non-local to me)? No I'm not going to obey Chinese laws.
> International websites have to respect local laws
No. A website doesn’t really exist unless a person visits it. It’s up to the user to respect local laws. If certain content is illegal somewhere, that’s not the fault of the website. The website isn’t in the country of concern. Why is it there problem? It’s up to the user to choose if they want to break local laws by consuming “illegal” content.
If I start a phone sex number in the Cayman Islands and such phone systems are illegal to use in Germany, then why is it my problem? I am not forcing people to call, nor why should I care where a call comes from. The end user is the one violating the law by calling my service. It isn’t like I am broadcasting.
Same concept. A website is no different than a phone number.
No. A website doesn’t really exist unless a person visits it. It’s up to the user to respect local laws. If certain content is illegal somewhere, that’s not the fault of the website. The website isn’t in the country of concern. Why is it there problem? It’s up to the user to choose if they want to break local laws by consuming “illegal” content.
If I start a phone sex number in the Cayman Islands and such phone systems are illegal to use in Germany, then why is it my problem? I am not forcing people to call, nor why should I care where a call comes from. The end user is the one violating the law by calling my service. It isn’t like I am broadcasting.
Same concept. A website is no different than a phone number.
It seemed that putting up a website these days means one either has to obey all laws of all counties of the world at the same time.
Or one has to restrict access to those counties where one follows the law, creating a fragmented web.
This is only going to get worse as the world keeps dialing back on globalization.
Or one has to restrict access to those counties where one follows the law, creating a fragmented web.
This is only going to get worse as the world keeps dialing back on globalization.
[deleted]
The plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH.
S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH is part of Holtzbrinck Publishing Group since 1963 [0].
Macmillan Publishers Ltd is wholly owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing Group since 1999 [1]
Basically a sister company of Macmillan which may (or may not) be hit with the negative publicity fallout in the more than 70 countries it operates in...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fischer_Verlag [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Publishers
S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH is part of Holtzbrinck Publishing Group since 1963 [0].
Macmillan Publishers Ltd is wholly owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing Group since 1999 [1]
Basically a sister company of Macmillan which may (or may not) be hit with the negative publicity fallout in the more than 70 countries it operates in...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fischer_Verlag [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Publishers
What would be the consequence of not complying? Would they just require German ISPs to filter the site? Could they enforce a judgement on a US company?
Fabulous :S The second time in 6 months German courts violated the public interest and ruled in favour of vested corporate intrests with an affect on me:
* In late 2017, a useless commercial weather forecast outlet (aggregating its data itself from national institutations!) sued the German National Weather service into having to take down its free weather app from the Apple and Goole app stores (development and operations funded with tax payer money!) and charge a fee for it. Somehow the judges got convinced that the Service unduly competed with a third-rate commercial information service.
* In early 2018, the courts lock out the public from a vast aggregate of literature in the public domain.
I'm sure I'll have a fresh item to continue the list soon.
* In late 2017, a useless commercial weather forecast outlet (aggregating its data itself from national institutations!) sued the German National Weather service into having to take down its free weather app from the Apple and Goole app stores (development and operations funded with tax payer money!) and charge a fee for it. Somehow the judges got convinced that the Service unduly competed with a third-rate commercial information service.
* In early 2018, the courts lock out the public from a vast aggregate of literature in the public domain.
I'm sure I'll have a fresh item to continue the list soon.
> In early 2018, the courts lock out the public from a vast aggregate of literature in the public domain.
The court decided that 18 titles should not be available. Locking you out completely was project Gutenberg’s decision.
I don’t support either court decision, but let’s still keep the facts straight.
The court decided that 18 titles should not be available. Locking you out completely was project Gutenberg’s decision.
I don’t support either court decision, but let’s still keep the facts straight.
For two reasons - other publishers were poking around about doing the same thing (minimize risk of it happening again with other titles), and to keep on the good side of the court (to ease appeals).
Can't say I blame them for either reason.
Can't say I blame them for either reason.
Also, it was a great rebuke to S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH.
At the cost of harming all german users. The Fischer Verlag honestly couldn’t care less - they probably like the outcome. Now even books that they wouldn’t have a legal recourse against are no longer available and must be bought. What an unexpected bonus!
Yes, that is true, and unfortunate. However, under US copyright law, Project Gutenberg does have the right to host those books. And it's never prudent to compromise regarding illegal demands.
I’d question it’s illegal. They have the right to host the books in the US, granted. But do they have the right to distribute them in germany? That’s where the court says no. And given the legal
situation in germany, I think the courts decision could be correct.
It’s also a bad decision in practical and strategic terms: either they appeal the decision, then they accepted jurisdiction and the legality of the injunction or they don’t - and what options do they have then? Keep up the block indefinitely or cave in at some point, showing that against a determined adversary, they’ll eventually back down? Imho, it’s good only for internet cookie points.
It’s also a bad decision in practical and strategic terms: either they appeal the decision, then they accepted jurisdiction and the legality of the injunction or they don’t - and what options do they have then? Keep up the block indefinitely or cave in at some point, showing that against a determined adversary, they’ll eventually back down? Imho, it’s good only for internet cookie points.
They could arguably have ignored the decision. If a German court rules that something should not be available in Germany, they should order German ISPs to block it. That's what the UK does about "illegal" torrenting and streaming. And that's what China does about the Dali Lama, Falun Gong, Uighur resistance, and so on.
Edit: OK, so some argue that Project Gutenberg, which does business from the US, and which has no physical presence in Germany, should have done what the German court ordered. But consider the implications. Firms hosting content from a particular country would be subject to court orders from every country. That would not end well.
Edit: OK, so some argue that Project Gutenberg, which does business from the US, and which has no physical presence in Germany, should have done what the German court ordered. But consider the implications. Firms hosting content from a particular country would be subject to court orders from every country. That would not end well.
An ISP block would also only block the entire site. This was not the intention of the court otherwise they would have done that instead.
The court only wanted some books blocked, not the entire site, because under german copyright those books are not yet public domain.
The court only wanted some books blocked, not the entire site, because under german copyright those books are not yet public domain.
The court did not order the books blocked, it ordered them taken down and for PG to pay damages.
> But consider the implications. Firms hosting content from a particular country would be subject to court orders from every country. That would not end well.
They already are if they target users in a given country. Lack of international enforcement just means that they might escape enforcement. See also GDPR, the US case against Mega, a company run by a NZ resident and incorporated in Hongkong IIRC. See also how Twitter blocks certain tweets in certain countries lest they’re blocked completely. Same holds true for Facebook. Google censors certain autocomplete and searches in some countries. They also adhere to the EU “right to be forgotten” regulations - despite being an US company.
They already are if they target users in a given country. Lack of international enforcement just means that they might escape enforcement. See also GDPR, the US case against Mega, a company run by a NZ resident and incorporated in Hongkong IIRC. See also how Twitter blocks certain tweets in certain countries lest they’re blocked completely. Same holds true for Facebook. Google censors certain autocomplete and searches in some countries. They also adhere to the EU “right to be forgotten” regulations - despite being an US company.
Sure, many companies comply "in certain countries lest they’re blocked completely". But Alexandra Elbakyan has ignored judgments in US courts against her. Under Russian law, I believe that her site is legal under fair use. She has managed to piss off the Putin administration, but that's a separate issue (as I understand it, her communist purity vs his vanity). And Google basically left China over censorship demands.
In the Mega case, the US basically leveraged their Five Eyes relationship with New Zealand to have Kim Dotcom's estate semi-illegally raided in January 2012. I say semi-illegally because it was done under agreements that are normally used against terrorists. I doubt that China could get away with rendition from US soil. No more than the US could get away with rendition of Snowden from Russian soil.
So basically, which countries get to enforce their law in other countries depends on relationships and dependencies, relative military power, and support from powerful allies. Under those standards, Germany might have a chance of prevailing against Project Gutenberg in the US. Except that the US doesn't like to be pushed around.
In the Mega case, the US basically leveraged their Five Eyes relationship with New Zealand to have Kim Dotcom's estate semi-illegally raided in January 2012. I say semi-illegally because it was done under agreements that are normally used against terrorists. I doubt that China could get away with rendition from US soil. No more than the US could get away with rendition of Snowden from Russian soil.
So basically, which countries get to enforce their law in other countries depends on relationships and dependencies, relative military power, and support from powerful allies. Under those standards, Germany might have a chance of prevailing against Project Gutenberg in the US. Except that the US doesn't like to be pushed around.
Ignoring an unfavorable ruling because it can't be enforced is not equal to not being subject to the laws. Alexandra Elbakyan might have major trouble traveling to the US.
These 18 titles were the canary in the coal mine showing that under current German law, it is infeasible to operate a Project Gutenberg-like service accessible in Germany.
The lock-out is just the natural result of that.
The lock-out is just the natural result of that.
It is absolutely possible to operate a Project Gutenberg-like service accessible in Germany. It would just have to serve books in the German public domain, just like the original PG serves books in the US public domain. Project Gutenberg Australia (http://gutenberg.net.au/), for example, has books that are in the Australian public domain but are still under copyright in the US.
It happens that in this case the books are in US public domain but not the German, but that's more of an exception than a rule: current US and EU copyright terms are the same (life of author + 70 years). Australia on the other hand has life of author + 60 years.
It happens that in this case the books are in US public domain but not the German, but that's more of an exception than a rule: current US and EU copyright terms are the same (life of author + 70 years). Australia on the other hand has life of author + 60 years.
Why does the EU still have the same gross and absurd copyright terms and laws the US does? It fights US companies like Google on privacy and information security grounds, but seems to follow lockstep with the US on completely irrational copyright policy like "75 years after the author dies, only then can anyone else reproduce this work".
The US has it because its government is coopted by big media like Disney, MPAA, and RIAA and the average American is too ignorant / doesn't care at all about the death and stifling of culture that 100+ year copyright terms bring about. Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing to represent the interests of their citizens, so why is it just as bad over there?
The US has it because its government is coopted by big media like Disney, MPAA, and RIAA and the average American is too ignorant / doesn't care at all about the death and stifling of culture that 100+ year copyright terms bring about. Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing to represent the interests of their citizens, so why is it just as bad over there?
Perhaps the European interests fighting copyright regulation are stronger than the ones that fought privacy regulation. See: diesel
Not sure why you would mention diesel. At the moment, European governments are queuing up to announce draconian bans on diesel coming into force in just a few years. That's certainly not pleasing most entrenched players in the energy and manufacturing sectors.
If you wanted to highlight established interests successfully fighting their corner in EU proceedings, you could have picked something like tax harmonisation or OGMs - fields where extensive lobbying seems to have ultimately won the day.
If you wanted to highlight established interests successfully fighting their corner in EU proceedings, you could have picked something like tax harmonisation or OGMs - fields where extensive lobbying seems to have ultimately won the day.
Could we for once and for all stop entertaining the ridiculous notion that GMOs are somehow harmful or a thing that should be avoided? Every single argument I've heard against GMOs, so far, has been a form of wilfully ignorant neo-luddism.
While yes, the contracts that companies selling GMOs utilise are socially unfair, it's not like we consider databases to be a horrific thing because Oracle licensing terms are bullshit.
While yes, the contracts that companies selling GMOs utilise are socially unfair, it's not like we consider databases to be a horrific thing because Oracle licensing terms are bullshit.
> the ridiculous notion that GMOs are somehow harmful
I did not express any judgement on this topic, I just pointed out that the current state of play at EU level on the subject is the result of extensive lobbying from the relevant industry.
I did not express any judgement on this topic, I just pointed out that the current state of play at EU level on the subject is the result of extensive lobbying from the relevant industry.
Ah I see. Still, your statement that extensive lobbying has won is pretty much a blanket statement for any contentious legislation. Both sides will extensively lobby and whichever side wins will be able to attribute it to lobbying.
In GMOs case, it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost in the EU. GMOs are subject to dumb shit like mandatory labelling which only reinforces people's ill-founded fears and will inevitably poison debate going forward. After all, "why would they force labelling if it were harmless?"
In GMOs case, it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost in the EU. GMOs are subject to dumb shit like mandatory labelling which only reinforces people's ill-founded fears and will inevitably poison debate going forward. After all, "why would they force labelling if it were harmless?"
> Both sides will extensively lobby
Absolutely, but often one side will not have industrial interests in play. I'm not intimate with the OGM situation, but the mainstream perception was that this is one of those cases where there is a difference in budgets, let's say.
> it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost
They had lost, and comprehensively, when the blanket ban was introduced. But they've since won by reversing it. If the situation actually were to be crystallized now, it would be a victory for pro-OGM interests and their lobbyists.
Absolutely, but often one side will not have industrial interests in play. I'm not intimate with the OGM situation, but the mainstream perception was that this is one of those cases where there is a difference in budgets, let's say.
> it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost
They had lost, and comprehensively, when the blanket ban was introduced. But they've since won by reversing it. If the situation actually were to be crystallized now, it would be a victory for pro-OGM interests and their lobbyists.
International IP law is standardized through the World Intellectual Property Organization. National laws like the DMCA in the US are local implementations of the international agreements.
Conforming to these rules is necessary to join any international club.
Without agreeing to terrible copyright laws, as a country, you basically don’t exist.
Take a look at the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Or...
Conforming to these rules is necessary to join any international club.
Without agreeing to terrible copyright laws, as a country, you basically don’t exist.
Take a look at the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Or...
1) the EU moving away from US economic and foreign policy is a relatively recent development. On most issues, from Crimea to copyright, you can usually start from the assumption that European and American positions are somewhat aligned. The exceptions (privacy etc) are well-known exactly because they are exceptions.
2) EU countries have a significant skin in the creative-sector game, in a way they really don't in other segments. In tech the US are more or less dominant, most "Big Bad Corps" are American, hence it's easier to attack. As soon as big European interests are in the picture, things naturally become harder. In this case, the incriminated books are by top German authors and likely contribute a pretty penny to the publisher's bottom line.
3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change.
> Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing to represent the interests of their citizens
I wish I could share this view. Alas, things like corruption, regulatory captivity, and revolving doors, are big problems on this side of the pond too.
2) EU countries have a significant skin in the creative-sector game, in a way they really don't in other segments. In tech the US are more or less dominant, most "Big Bad Corps" are American, hence it's easier to attack. As soon as big European interests are in the picture, things naturally become harder. In this case, the incriminated books are by top German authors and likely contribute a pretty penny to the publisher's bottom line.
3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change.
> Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing to represent the interests of their citizens
I wish I could share this view. Alas, things like corruption, regulatory captivity, and revolving doors, are big problems on this side of the pond too.
>3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change.
This is an important point that is often forgotten. People complain that the EU is too complicated, but it became that way be necessity. You couldn't have built a European federation with the same scope and less complexity.
This is an important point that is often forgotten. People complain that the EU is too complicated, but it became that way be necessity. You couldn't have built a European federation with the same scope and less complexity.
>likely contribute a pretty penny to the publisher's bottom line
Is there any evidence for this ? Judging by the dates of the works, this looks like it is just a shakedown and an attempt to set precedent.
Is there any evidence for this ? Judging by the dates of the works, this looks like it is just a shakedown and an attempt to set precedent.
Thomas Mann is a giant of European literature, a Nobel Prize read in universities all across Europe. Chances are it's compulsory reading in German high schools in some way. The Buddenbrooks alone will probably sell a good amount of copies each year.
Heinrich Mann was a very important figure during Weimar. Again, chances are it pops up in compulsory reads.
I honestly don't know Döblin, but looking at how his most famous book is described, he seems to be another key read about the Weimar years - again, likely compulsory at school in Germany.
Schoolbooks make a lot of money.
Heinrich Mann was a very important figure during Weimar. Again, chances are it pops up in compulsory reads.
I honestly don't know Döblin, but looking at how his most famous book is described, he seems to be another key read about the Weimar years - again, likely compulsory at school in Germany.
Schoolbooks make a lot of money.
Because, unlike some frankly sometimes a bit ignorant view of especially Americans, Germany isn't the paradise of individual/customers rights paradise it's often portraied as. It fights companies like Google not because privacy and security concerns but protectionism and the public accepts that due to some reasonble concerns about privacy spiked with deeply entrenched anti-americanism. (For context: I'm German)
I'm also German and strongly disagree with your opinion. Privacy is a very delicate topic in Germany since the Nazis and the Stasi used to arrest people for even talking bad about them.
While this is true for the people, the officials seem to have other goals and opinions about privacy. E.g. using video surveillance at the Südkreuz in Berlin.
Also from Germany ;)
Also from Germany ;)
There are advocacy groups fighting privacy everywhere, including germany. And yes, they make progress, even here. But we still have stronger privacy culture and laws (that local companies follow, regardless what the guy a few posts above says) , giving such groups a much harder time here (and some degree the EU) to push their agenda. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case regarding IP laws/interest.
If it’s so delicate, why do Germans permit a law that requires people to register their religion? When I had applied for a German residency permit, I was asked to disclose a religion, ostensibly to determine taxes.
I feel like Germans fall back on the “delicate topic” nonsense as a permanent justification for just about everything, but in reality, they tolerate plenty of big government violations of privacy and individual liberty while becoming hysterical about Google or Facebook. It’s illogical, Facebook isn’t going to lead to Nazism or the Stasi again — but the actual government could, yet Germans tolerate their government tracking people by religion or a government conducting mass surveillance but they lose their minds over an American social media company?
Russians and East Europeans aren’t constantly claiming “sensitivity” because of the past abuses of the KGB or NKVD despite those organizations killing vastly more people than the Nazis.
It’s hypocrisy. You can’t claim to be sensitive about a Nazi past while still tolerating the government to register people by their religion. Facebook privacy issues aren’t going to lead to Nazism; any implication of same is just nonsense.
I feel like Germans fall back on the “delicate topic” nonsense as a permanent justification for just about everything, but in reality, they tolerate plenty of big government violations of privacy and individual liberty while becoming hysterical about Google or Facebook. It’s illogical, Facebook isn’t going to lead to Nazism or the Stasi again — but the actual government could, yet Germans tolerate their government tracking people by religion or a government conducting mass surveillance but they lose their minds over an American social media company?
Russians and East Europeans aren’t constantly claiming “sensitivity” because of the past abuses of the KGB or NKVD despite those organizations killing vastly more people than the Nazis.
It’s hypocrisy. You can’t claim to be sensitive about a Nazi past while still tolerating the government to register people by their religion. Facebook privacy issues aren’t going to lead to Nazism; any implication of same is just nonsense.
> I was asked to disclose a religion, ostensibly to determine taxes.
The Church's "member fee" is being collected as a tax by the state because of some Weimar Republic law that has been kept around. Bishops are also payed by the state. This was to stop the then powerful churches from revolting against the government because the government wanted to clean up older laws and conflicts. [1] Don't ask me why it's still this way, I know a lot of people that want to get rid of that, including myself. You can get out of paying church tax very easily at the city hall, btw. You can then also state that your religion is following the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Imho, you are blowing this out of proportion.
> It’s illogical, Facebook isn’t going to lead to Nazism or the Stasi again
Right, but governments that request access to this data can. It's better to not collect data in the first place.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany
The Church's "member fee" is being collected as a tax by the state because of some Weimar Republic law that has been kept around. Bishops are also payed by the state. This was to stop the then powerful churches from revolting against the government because the government wanted to clean up older laws and conflicts. [1] Don't ask me why it's still this way, I know a lot of people that want to get rid of that, including myself. You can get out of paying church tax very easily at the city hall, btw. You can then also state that your religion is following the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Imho, you are blowing this out of proportion.
> It’s illogical, Facebook isn’t going to lead to Nazism or the Stasi again
Right, but governments that request access to this data can. It's better to not collect data in the first place.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany
[deleted]
seems to follow lockstep with the US on completely irrational copyright policy like "75 years after the author dies, only then can anyone else reproduce this work".
No, the US followed the EU on that one. The Berne Convention first set that policy¹ in 1886, and amongst the original signatories were multiple European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Others followed soon after, like Luxembourg (1888), Denmark (1903), Austria and Greece (1920), Hungary (1922), Ireland (1927), Finland (1928), etc.
The US was a holdout; they kept the policy based only on date of publication, which led to a much shorter duration, and only joined Berne a century after its creation.
Which is why the books in question in this lawsuit are in the public domain in the US but not in Germany.
¹ Berne only said life + 50, but it was already life + 80 in Germany before the US ever joined. The EU then harmonized at life + 70 in Directive 93/98/EEC.
No, the US followed the EU on that one. The Berne Convention first set that policy¹ in 1886, and amongst the original signatories were multiple European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Others followed soon after, like Luxembourg (1888), Denmark (1903), Austria and Greece (1920), Hungary (1922), Ireland (1927), Finland (1928), etc.
The US was a holdout; they kept the policy based only on date of publication, which led to a much shorter duration, and only joined Berne a century after its creation.
Which is why the books in question in this lawsuit are in the public domain in the US but not in Germany.
¹ Berne only said life + 50, but it was already life + 80 in Germany before the US ever joined. The EU then harmonized at life + 70 in Directive 93/98/EEC.
But those facts don’t fit with the anti-American trope commonly repeated on Hacker News. Why do many Europeans on here seem to resent or blame the US for everything? There doesn’t seem to be nearly the same animosity from Asians or Australians. I am genuinely curious because clearly you stated the facts around the origins of copyright law but clearly others wanted to claim that this whole system was caused by Americans — despite being factually wrong. Do Europeans have an inferiority complex or something when it comes to Americans? It’s strange to me because Germans really seemed to love the US during the Berlin Wall era.. Levi’s, American music, Coca Cola, American military assistance to counter the Soviets.. but as soon as that wall came down, the next German generation seems to be filled with a low-grade hatred or resentment of all things American. But Europeans, rather than attempting to compete with American companies like Facebook, Apple or Google, instead seem to want to use the government to weaken those companies — rather than supporting tax and entrepreneurial policy that would allow places like France to create successful companies. There are more tech billionaires and millionaires in a single city in the United States than in the entirety of Europe. And that money? It gets used to fund more companies — creating a cycle of innovation and entrepreneurship.
But somehow, all of Europe’s problems are because of America?
But somehow, all of Europe’s problems are because of America?
Well, while I'm European, I can't say I speak for Europeans; I have no special knowledge. Take this with a big grain of salt.
You know the Elder Race trope in sci-fi? I think we Europeans think of ourselves a bit like that. Having suffered so much in both world wars, and having since mostly stopped fighting, we see ourselves as mature. Between the 50s-80s, we also mostly embraced a style of social-democracy with strong safety nets, which made us think of ourselves as compassionate. And our ancient heritage - cities, traditions, etc - make us feel wise.
Americans are seen a bit like the ancient Greeks and Romans saw the Barbarians. We might like some of you (hell, some barbarians were made into Roman emperors!), but you are still seen as violent and dangerous; be that due to your foreign policy (Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq) or your way of life (love of guns, poor social safety net, anti-science beliefs, etc).
But the real problem is that you are powerful, and you use that power. The previous poster might be incorrect regarding that particular policy, but their misconception comes from the fact that the US has been forcing IP treaties (e.g. ACTA) on other countries. And it's not just those treaties, it's your products and even your culture. You mentioned Coca-Cola. You know how that used to be called in my country, especially during the more left-wing days of the late 70s? The "dirty water of imperialism". The fear of being Americanized exists - and it's not unreasonable.
But you should also know that the US is not seen as the source of all evils, that's probably just what reaches you. There's plenty of internal strife. In my country, during the crisis, the enemies were Merkel and Schaeuble, for example.
You know the Elder Race trope in sci-fi? I think we Europeans think of ourselves a bit like that. Having suffered so much in both world wars, and having since mostly stopped fighting, we see ourselves as mature. Between the 50s-80s, we also mostly embraced a style of social-democracy with strong safety nets, which made us think of ourselves as compassionate. And our ancient heritage - cities, traditions, etc - make us feel wise.
Americans are seen a bit like the ancient Greeks and Romans saw the Barbarians. We might like some of you (hell, some barbarians were made into Roman emperors!), but you are still seen as violent and dangerous; be that due to your foreign policy (Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq) or your way of life (love of guns, poor social safety net, anti-science beliefs, etc).
But the real problem is that you are powerful, and you use that power. The previous poster might be incorrect regarding that particular policy, but their misconception comes from the fact that the US has been forcing IP treaties (e.g. ACTA) on other countries. And it's not just those treaties, it's your products and even your culture. You mentioned Coca-Cola. You know how that used to be called in my country, especially during the more left-wing days of the late 70s? The "dirty water of imperialism". The fear of being Americanized exists - and it's not unreasonable.
But you should also know that the US is not seen as the source of all evils, that's probably just what reaches you. There's plenty of internal strife. In my country, during the crisis, the enemies were Merkel and Schaeuble, for example.
> The US has it because its government is coopted by big media like Disney, MPAA, and RIAA and the average American is too ignorant / doesn't care at all about the death and stifling of culture that 100+ year copyright terms bring about.
Germany has many powerful media/publishing companies as well, and most people don't care. It's really a very similar situation.
Germany has many powerful media/publishing companies as well, and most people don't care. It's really a very similar situation.
The EU broadly follows the French legal tradition that copyright isn't a "monopoly granted for the useful arts" as we hear so much on here from Americans. Copyright is considered to be a property right, period. And hence inheritable.
The Hacker News contention that the US exports it's copyright policy flat out isn't true really. The EU has always had very similar beliefs on the value of strong, long term copyright.
The Hacker News contention that the US exports it's copyright policy flat out isn't true really. The EU has always had very similar beliefs on the value of strong, long term copyright.
> Why does the EU still have the same gross and absurd copyright terms and laws the US does?
Uh... you do realize the EU had them first?
Uh... you do realize the EU had them first?
Somewhat ironic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg
tl;dr Project gutenberg is a USA entity, and in the USA copyright ends x years after publication. In Germany (and UK and many other EU countries) it's x years after authors death. A Troll Law Firm sued under German copyright and seems to have won the first round.
So this is Brexit for me. We in the UK think we are going to "take back control", but the nature of globalisation just means more and more situations like this. and there are only three ways it goes
- race to the top best regulations are adopted globally. Everyone but the best is a rule taker
- race to the bottom just awful
- confusoploy bad - where you go to gutenberg to get shakespeare's othello and have to sign 19'waivers saying you are not in a dozen jurisdictions that claim copyright still exists
Personally I think confusoploy is our likely destiny. sadly
So this is Brexit for me. We in the UK think we are going to "take back control", but the nature of globalisation just means more and more situations like this. and there are only three ways it goes
- race to the top best regulations are adopted globally. Everyone but the best is a rule taker
- race to the bottom just awful
- confusoploy bad - where you go to gutenberg to get shakespeare's othello and have to sign 19'waivers saying you are not in a dozen jurisdictions that claim copyright still exists
Personally I think confusoploy is our likely destiny. sadly
This is adorable. I wish other sites like YouTube, GitHub, Wikipedia etc would also refuse to remove something or block something in particular for particular country.
(1) This is not adorable. (2) I feel this is similar to "first they came for the socialists"[1] idea: your country could be next to be blocked access from Github, Youtube or Wikipedia. It's a ridiculous idea that everyone should do this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I would absolutely prefer my country to try blocking access to Github, Youtube or Wikipedia rather than Github/Youtube/Wikipedia to block particular content for it on its demand. In fact I would bypass the block anyway so it doesn't really matter practically but it matters a lot from the political point of view.
The governments/institutions demanding web sites to prevent their citizens from accessing particular content are modern day legal terrorists and tyrants and nobody should ever agree to negotiate such things with them nor volunteer to participate in oppressing their citizens.
The governments/institutions demanding web sites to prevent their citizens from accessing particular content are modern day legal terrorists and tyrants and nobody should ever agree to negotiate such things with them nor volunteer to participate in oppressing their citizens.
Btw, Waldorf Frommer is specialized in these questionable law suites. They built an business around sueing people for torrenting things.
It's great irony that Johannes Gutenberg, the person who the project is named after, was German.
Interesting that it's still available to me. Uncomfortable situation over all, but an understandable decision.
I'm not sure I follow why people are upset with the publishing company that's sueing. They do own the copyright. One can disagree with the law and think it should be changed (I strongly believe that) but that's up to lawmakers to do. It would be irresponsible for the publisher to ignore that their ownership is being ignored.
Nobody likes an asshole, even a responsible one.
So in order not to be "an asshole" German published should just limit themselves to copyright defined by US?
I'm sure Disney wouldn't be happy either if their movies that are still under copyright in the US were to be published for everyone to download on a server in some country that had shorter copyright than US. They'd try to sue as well.
I'm sure Disney wouldn't be happy either if their movies that are still under copyright in the US were to be published for everyone to download on a server in some country that had shorter copyright than US. They'd try to sue as well.
Your argument is "there are other assholes". While true, that still doesn't make them likeable. ["Likable"? Never saw that spelling before.]
That's not my argument. My argument or rather question is "Why do we get upset if someone in another country enforces their longer copyright period while we don't get upset every time American companies enforce theirs?"
In my perception copyright periods are all insanely long.
Oh, absolutely agreed with that. I'm against Imaginary Property anyway. And I do get upset every time American companies enforce their copyrights :)
In the US, yes. Disney would be free to ask US courts to require ISPs in the US to block those servers, assuming they have no more direct legal route by treaty.
Disney could also apply legal sanctions to the owners of the servers, should they ever travel to the US, and could probably convince the US Marines to extradite the owner. But I don't think that should be encouraged.
Disney could also apply legal sanctions to the owners of the servers, should they ever travel to the US, and could probably convince the US Marines to extradite the owner. But I don't think that should be encouraged.
I'm sure Disney wouldn't be happy, but that doesn't mean they should have legal recourse (beyond in the US - e.g. targeting downloaders) either. If German law was changed to place Snow White back under copyright, I suspect Disney would not accept that as having effect in the US.
According to the linked faq,
* They did not own all of the copyrights at the time the suit was filed. In fact, they may not own the rights now.
* International treaties like the Berne Convention have means to resolve these disputes. The plaintiffs have ignored those and filed suit in their own, likely incorrect, jurisdiction.
* The suit, and the decision, does not ask for the texts in question be blocked in German jurisdiction. It calls for them to be taken down entirely, even though they are legal in the US.
* They did not own all of the copyrights at the time the suit was filed. In fact, they may not own the rights now.
* International treaties like the Berne Convention have means to resolve these disputes. The plaintiffs have ignored those and filed suit in their own, likely incorrect, jurisdiction.
* The suit, and the decision, does not ask for the texts in question be blocked in German jurisdiction. It calls for them to be taken down entirely, even though they are legal in the US.
The judgement clearly states that the books in question should be blocked from being accessed from Germany. The court is aware that such blocks can be circumvented but that's still fine. They never claimed jurisdiction over what happens to users outside of Germany and explicitly haven't ordered the site to take down those books completely.
I have a contrary opinion to most others here.
PG should take steps to honour the copyright laws of other countries.
My reasoning is this:
Say hypothetically I started "Project Open" in a country with zero copyright protections.
Then by that country's laws, I can list Amazons entire kindle catalog, buy all their books and scan them, and make it open access.
And by the PG argument, ignore the laws of other countries that demand copyright protection for those books, until I get sued.
At which point I block the site for the countries based on IP address (as if proxies and VPNs and people who travel don't exist)
If someone did that, they'd probably be characterised as a pirate site and shut down by the FBI.
PG should take steps to honour the copyright laws of other countries.
My reasoning is this:
Say hypothetically I started "Project Open" in a country with zero copyright protections.
Then by that country's laws, I can list Amazons entire kindle catalog, buy all their books and scan them, and make it open access.
And by the PG argument, ignore the laws of other countries that demand copyright protection for those books, until I get sued.
At which point I block the site for the countries based on IP address (as if proxies and VPNs and people who travel don't exist)
If someone did that, they'd probably be characterised as a pirate site and shut down by the FBI.
PG is honoring the laws of the US and, by extension, any country that had an appropriate treaty with the US. Which includes Germany.
That's OK if PG is only accessible in the US.
Two counterpoints:
* The subset of things that are legal in all jurisdictions is probably rather small. Let's say hypothetically that a country bans the distribution of all works in English - should PG comply with that as well?
* Why should I have to care about laws beyond my jurisdiction when setting up a service? That seems like a tremendous burden.
> they'd probably be characterised as a pirate site and shut down by the FBI.
That's a likely outcome, but if Project Open is operating lawfully in its own country, on what grounds should the FBI be able to claim jurisdiction? Unilaterally applying laws over foreign persons in foreign territories feels like an overstep.
* The subset of things that are legal in all jurisdictions is probably rather small. Let's say hypothetically that a country bans the distribution of all works in English - should PG comply with that as well?
* Why should I have to care about laws beyond my jurisdiction when setting up a service? That seems like a tremendous burden.
> they'd probably be characterised as a pirate site and shut down by the FBI.
That's a likely outcome, but if Project Open is operating lawfully in its own country, on what grounds should the FBI be able to claim jurisdiction? Unilaterally applying laws over foreign persons in foreign territories feels like an overstep.
> Let's say hypothetically that a country bans the distribution of all works in English - should PG comply with that as well?
If there's an international treaty (or indeed several) backing it up? Probably. Unlikely that there would be though.
If there's an international treaty (or indeed several) backing it up? Probably. Unlikely that there would be though.
Does anyone know why the books involved in the lawsuit are in the public domain in the US but not in Germany?
That's in the article. In the US, the copyright term (for the relevant period) was the date they were published plus n years. In (most of) Europe, it's the life of the author plus n years.
So for a book published 50 years before the author died, the term expires in the US long before it does in (most of) Europe.
(This has since changed in the US, but did not apply retroactively. So published+n still applies to works published before the change to life+n)
So for a book published 50 years before the author died, the term expires in the US long before it does in (most of) Europe.
(This has since changed in the US, but did not apply retroactively. So published+n still applies to works published before the change to life+n)
I am not a lawyer, but...
I hope and suspect that the US courts would refuse to enforce the judgement against Project Gutenberg. A little bit of research shows that for a foreign judgement to be enforced, a country would need to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
That doesn't seem to be the case here, at least under the US law that would apply if the judgement was being enforced.
Given all the overreach of European governments over the past few years (VATMOSS, GDPR, and now this), I suspect the time is ripe for something like the SPEECH act, a law clarifies that when a US citizen makes something available on the US, that does does not subject them to the law of a non-US country - and that allows the US citizen to claim court costs if someone tries to register a judgement against them.
I hope and suspect that the US courts would refuse to enforce the judgement against Project Gutenberg. A little bit of research shows that for a foreign judgement to be enforced, a country would need to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
That doesn't seem to be the case here, at least under the US law that would apply if the judgement was being enforced.
Given all the overreach of European governments over the past few years (VATMOSS, GDPR, and now this), I suspect the time is ripe for something like the SPEECH act, a law clarifies that when a US citizen makes something available on the US, that does does not subject them to the law of a non-US country - and that allows the US citizen to claim court costs if someone tries to register a judgement against them.
> I suspect the time is ripe for something like the SPEECH act, a law clarifies that when a US citizen makes something available on the US, that does does not subject them to the law of a non-US country - and that allows the US citizen to claim court costs if someone tries to register a judgement against them.
The US would have to pull out of all international copyright treaties and the WTO for this to happen, so it's not going to happen.
The US would have to pull out of all international copyright treaties and the WTO for this to happen, so it's not going to happen.
I am in Germany, and I just opened Moby Dick on Project Gutenberg. I do have native IPv6, though, someone already pointed out that the block only affects IPv4.
70 years for copyright (no matter from what point) is a ridiculous length to begin with.
It is even more painful when you realize that all of the 18 books mentioned were published in or before 1920.
Most of these books are over a century old.
I would expect that between the extremes of copyright abolishment and the current system of 'life + 70 years', most people would agree that some amount of protection is fair, but I seriously doubt that a majority feels that anything over 30 years since publication is necessary, much less considered fair. I wonder if that was ever researched in recent years.
Not that it matters; global copyright laws are permantently frozen because amending them is a costly matter requiring global coordination, and there is little political will to tackle this (or even consider it a problem). Any attempt to lower the extend of copyright (in any jurisdiction) will be met by a wall of well-paid lawyers and lobbyists pay-rolled by all the major content owners.
Most of these books are over a century old.
I would expect that between the extremes of copyright abolishment and the current system of 'life + 70 years', most people would agree that some amount of protection is fair, but I seriously doubt that a majority feels that anything over 30 years since publication is necessary, much less considered fair. I wonder if that was ever researched in recent years.
Not that it matters; global copyright laws are permantently frozen because amending them is a costly matter requiring global coordination, and there is little political will to tackle this (or even consider it a problem). Any attempt to lower the extend of copyright (in any jurisdiction) will be met by a wall of well-paid lawyers and lobbyists pay-rolled by all the major content owners.
I think the lifetime of the author is not ridiculous: I made something, so I get to be the owner. That I live to be 100 years old and wrote it when I was 25 years old... I don't think that's completely unreasonable. I can also imagine that if Joe wrote something amazing, expects to feed his family with that for a few years, and dies in a car crash the next day, the poor wife or kids might enjoy some of the royalties for a few years (like 5-10 years).
When written for a company, the span should be much shorter: like with patents, one can expect them to think of a new story after a while.
So I agree that death+70 is ridiculous, but 70 by itself, so long as it's not past the author's death (unless s/he dies within 5-10 years after creating the work)... I think that's not completely crazy.
When written for a company, the span should be much shorter: like with patents, one can expect them to think of a new story after a while.
So I agree that death+70 is ridiculous, but 70 by itself, so long as it's not past the author's death (unless s/he dies within 5-10 years after creating the work)... I think that's not completely crazy.
> The is no reason to remove them. The 18 eBooks are all in the public domain in the US, and have been for many years. Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.
Suppose a country X existed which doesn't honor US copyrights at all. By symmetry, it seems that Project Gutenberg would approve of a website hosted entirely in country X, offering full texts of all publications by US authors, up to the present day, for download by anyone in the world, including in the US.
I do realize that PG is under no obligation to have an opinion on any such hypothetical circumstance. But nevertheless, that seems to be the implication. Are they really so anarchic? Or do they just think US copyright laws are more important than everyone else's?
Suppose a country X existed which doesn't honor US copyrights at all. By symmetry, it seems that Project Gutenberg would approve of a website hosted entirely in country X, offering full texts of all publications by US authors, up to the present day, for download by anyone in the world, including in the US.
I do realize that PG is under no obligation to have an opinion on any such hypothetical circumstance. But nevertheless, that seems to be the implication. Are they really so anarchic? Or do they just think US copyright laws are more important than everyone else's?
For many years, X was China. I have no information about whether PG approved of that or not. PG follows the laws of the country in which it is based.
Seems like every major part of the internet is under attack by the media, the courts, governments and the elite. Every day, it's another major part of the internet having to defend itself.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you want to take action, like boycott, these rent seekers. Here's a list of associated publishers:
S. Fischer Verlag
O.W. Barth
Wolfgang Krüger
Argon Verlag (de)
Scherz Verlag (de)
Fretz & Wasmuth
Rowohlt Verlag
Kiepenheuer & Witsch
Verlagsgruppe Droemer Knaur
Die Zeit
Macmillan
Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Faber & Faber
Henry Holt and Company
Holt Paperbacks
Metropolitan Books
Times Books
Owl Books
Palgrave Macmillan
Picador
Roaring Brook Press
Neal Porter Books
First Second Books
St. Martin's Press
Tom Doherty Associates
Tor Books
Forge Books
Bedford, Freeman and Worth Publishing Group
W.H. Freeman
Bedford-St. Martin's
Worth Publishers
Hayden-McNeil
Nature Publishing Group
Scientific American
Audio Renaissance
Renaissance Media
Macmillan Publishers
Palgrave Macmillan
Pan Macmillan
Macmillan
Pan Books
Picador
Macmillan Children's Books
Campbell Books
Priddy Books
Boxtree
Sidgwick & Jackson
Nature Publishing Group
Macmillan EducationTo put things into perspective, the plaintiffs lawyers, Waldorf Frommer, are known for shady tactics. They have built an industry of putting immense pressure on private people. They don't shy away from lawsuits because they are cheap for them and menacing for the people. They don't always win, but under the line it is a very profitable business for them; they employ about 60 lawyers.
The public broadcast made documentaries about their cease-and-desist-industry against private people. Even the German Bundestag changed multiple times the law to stop that madness, but it took many years because the christian party opposed effective changes. Now, even though the law has changed on the 13th October 2017, they continue to pressure people into paying.
Some courts are heavily in favour of them, most notably the Amtsgericht München. This makes the situation even worse for people who cannot afford to appeal a judgement even though they are convinced they are not guilty, because the financial risk is too high. I would not be surprised if the judgement in this case gets overthrown in a higher court.
The defendants german lawyers, WILDE BEUGER SOLMECKE, are known for legal defense against Waldorf Frommer. Personally, I don't trust them completely because they offer an all-inclusive legal defense package that is conveniently priced at 2/3 of the value Waldorf Frommer asks for. This industry is a huge employment scheme for lawyers.
The public broadcast made documentaries about their cease-and-desist-industry against private people. Even the German Bundestag changed multiple times the law to stop that madness, but it took many years because the christian party opposed effective changes. Now, even though the law has changed on the 13th October 2017, they continue to pressure people into paying.
Some courts are heavily in favour of them, most notably the Amtsgericht München. This makes the situation even worse for people who cannot afford to appeal a judgement even though they are convinced they are not guilty, because the financial risk is too high. I would not be surprised if the judgement in this case gets overthrown in a higher court.
The defendants german lawyers, WILDE BEUGER SOLMECKE, are known for legal defense against Waldorf Frommer. Personally, I don't trust them completely because they offer an all-inclusive legal defense package that is conveniently priced at 2/3 of the value Waldorf Frommer asks for. This industry is a huge employment scheme for lawyers.
Publishing the name of the company will not really help to fight them. Every company is a team of people behind, so listing names of those people can have a better effect instead.
Do you have the titles of the documentaries? I didn't find any. Search engines just deliver tons of links of lawyers offering their services.
ubiyubix, your comment is dead.
To answer your question, I don't remember which documentaries were good, but searching on YouTube with subsets of the relevant keyword set {abmahnung, abzocke, Waldorf frommer, doku} will give you multiple results.
Just to give one example, I'll name https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w7t4znx8DA
To answer your question, I don't remember which documentaries were good, but searching on YouTube with subsets of the relevant keyword set {abmahnung, abzocke, Waldorf frommer, doku} will give you multiple results.
Just to give one example, I'll name https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w7t4znx8DA
These copyright laws are such a joke! Typical of nowadays germany. Nothing is working anymore, except you run an army of lawyers and "cash-into" the local government. Its such a joke, rly.
> So the court thinks that the presence of content in German means that courts in Germany have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that PGLAF is entirely in the US?
I suspect that if the Brits started claiming jurisdiction — well, _everywhere_ - on this basis, then that would raise eyebrows
I suspect that if the Brits started claiming jurisdiction — well, _everywhere_ - on this basis, then that would raise eyebrows
There are some limitations on it nowadays, but they do and used to a LOT more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
So why don't they have a Tor onion link?
I mean, Facebook does, for dog's sake!
I mean, Facebook does, for dog's sake!
neya(2)
Blocking the whole country is an interesting move, mostly because it has the potential to generate a much greater public outcry than simply masking away the few specific books in question, putting a greater public pressure to reevaluate the entire legal constructs surrounding these issues. It's a display of standing for your principles without compromise.
Can someone explain to me why project Gutenberg has decided to block the COMPLETE site for German IPs instead of just blocking the books in question?
Is this just a dick move to enrage people and get attention?
And they could have blocked just the pages with the books in question directly after receiving the copyright violation notification...
Is this just a dick move to enrage people and get attention?
And they could have blocked just the pages with the books in question directly after receiving the copyright violation notification...
this is discussed here in the comments extensively. The best answer is that they block Germany because they expect if they complied by only blocking certain books they would have to deal with many more requests in the future. They also decided to take this chance to make a statement to encourage a public debate.
Now this is how you deal with government censorship. Take note, Github, Youtube, Instagram, Twitter et. al.
IMSLP should follow suit, instead of taking any chances, until German courts come to their senses about jurisdiction.
(For those who don't know, IMSLP hosts a lot of sheet music scans that are out of copyright in canada, and not in the EU).
(For those who don't know, IMSLP hosts a lot of sheet music scans that are out of copyright in canada, and not in the EU).
those pesky germans at it again..
So what? Even my Dad knows how to use a VPN.
Unfortunately, the donation page https://www.gutenberg.org/donate is also blocked in Germany :(
I wonder if it works the other way around, in general:
- country A has different copyright laws than country B.
- A copyright holder from country A asks an organization in country B to take off some content based on country A's copyright laws.
- The organization in country B decides not to take off the content, as it is perfectly fine under country B copyright laws, and block whole country A access.
So here are some questions:
- Might this case set a precedent?
- Some of those weird, small and autonomous one-island countries can come up with some very relaxed copyright laws and start distribute content "legally" ?
- country A has different copyright laws than country B.
- A copyright holder from country A asks an organization in country B to take off some content based on country A's copyright laws.
- The organization in country B decides not to take off the content, as it is perfectly fine under country B copyright laws, and block whole country A access.
So here are some questions:
- Might this case set a precedent?
- Some of those weird, small and autonomous one-island countries can come up with some very relaxed copyright laws and start distribute content "legally" ?
That's where power relationships come into play.
If the small Island country tries to play that game, they find that much needed international trade with other bigger countries starts to dry up, and fast.
Hosting public-domain content for free doesn't really produce much revenue, so for a country to sacrifice so much lost trade/needed supplies for no economic benefit doesn't really work in the long term.
If the small Island country tries to play that game, they find that much needed international trade with other bigger countries starts to dry up, and fast.
Hosting public-domain content for free doesn't really produce much revenue, so for a country to sacrifice so much lost trade/needed supplies for no economic benefit doesn't really work in the long term.
I wonder if, given their broad reply, that project shouldn't just block everyone BUT the US, since they decided that US law is the only that applies to them.
Now, I don't like these laws one bit, but I also really don't like this (over)reaction. If your legal counsel argues that you should block a country to avoid being sued for different laws, shouldn't the same counsel point out that this is likely for most of the world?
Or is Germany the oddball here and the majority of the world doesn't have CP laws, or doesn't care or .. have laws that are literally one to one compatible with the US ones?
Now, I don't like these laws one bit, but I also really don't like this (over)reaction. If your legal counsel argues that you should block a country to avoid being sued for different laws, shouldn't the same counsel point out that this is likely for most of the world?
Or is Germany the oddball here and the majority of the world doesn't have CP laws, or doesn't care or .. have laws that are literally one to one compatible with the US ones?
Most countries are signatories to the WIPO treaty that enshrines a global "standard" on copyright laws. However, each individual country's legislation is different -- though generally most countries have similar or looser copyright laws than America (since America was the source of the current insane variant of copyright we are experiencing, rather than the previously-sane British copyright system defined by the Statute of Anne).
However, Europe has some really strange copyright directives that go even further than the US. For instance, architecture is copyrightable, and so taking and distributing photos of the outside of a building is not technically allowed without permission from the owner. So taking tourist photos within an EU country and posting them online could be seen as copyright infringement.
Of course, this is just a general guideline, if you actually want to do business you need to ask lawyers familiar with the laws of all the countries you wish to do business with (though this is prohibitively expensive for volunteer efforts, which explains why they didn't do it).
However, Europe has some really strange copyright directives that go even further than the US. For instance, architecture is copyrightable, and so taking and distributing photos of the outside of a building is not technically allowed without permission from the owner. So taking tourist photos within an EU country and posting them online could be seen as copyright infringement.
Of course, this is just a general guideline, if you actually want to do business you need to ask lawyers familiar with the laws of all the countries you wish to do business with (though this is prohibitively expensive for volunteer efforts, which explains why they didn't do it).
What would have happened if PGLAF had just ignored the lawsuit? Since they have no presence in Germany what could the German courts have done to them?
What are the precedents?
another Neuland in Germany
German users, please do not access or clone the following github repositories:
“Der Untertan,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Untertan_38126
“Die Ehrgeizige,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Ehrgeizige_43335
“Professor Unrat oder Das Ende eines Tyrannen,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Professor-Unrat-oder-Das-Ende-e...
“Der Vater,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Vater_33329
“Flöten und Dolche,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Fl-ten-und-Dolche--Novellen_312...
“Flaubert und die Herkunft des modernen Romans,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Flaubert-und-die-Herkunft-des-m...
“Buddenbrooks,” https://github.com/GITenberg/BuddenbrooksVerfall-einer-Famil...
“Der Tod in Venedig,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Tod-in-Venedig_12108
“Der kleine Herr Friedemann,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-kleine-Herr-FriedemannNovel...
“Tristan,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Tristan_13810
“Gladius Dei,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere-Stunde_120...
“Schwere Stunde,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere-Stunde_120...
“Königliche Hoheit,” https://github.com/GITenberg/K-nigliche-HoheitRoman_35328
“Tonio Kröger,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Tonio-Kr-ger_23313
“Die Ermordung einer Butterblume und andere Erzählungen,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Ermordung-einer-Butterblume...
“Die drei Sprünge des Wang-lun,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-drei-Spr-nge-des-Wang-lunCh...
“Die Lobensteiner reisen nach Böhmen,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Lobensteiner-reisen-nach-B-...
“Wallenstein,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-I.--of-2-_43931
“Wallenstein,” https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-II.--of-2-_43932
I would second the motion that copyright laws are a f*ing joke. But given that laws are the way they are, there isn't clearly a good guy and a bad guy in this story. I really don't think it's wrong for German courts to intervene when German laws are broken in the way that a U.S.-based party facilitates a German-based party (who reads copyrighted material without paying for it) infringing on the rights of another German-based party (who authored or otherwise acquired rights in the material).
I think it's wrong for the U.S. to be a "safe haven" for people whose attitude towards the rest of the world is "screw you and your laws." That's exactly Google's legal strategy with privacy laws: They make sure everything they do when they violate E.U. privacy laws somehow comes under U.S. jurisdiction, which says something to the effect of "...well U.S.-based persons have a right to privacy, but, as for the rest of the world, dear Google, you hereby have permission to do whatever you want". (At least that's my non-expert understanding of U.S. privacy laws. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm a huge fan of PGLAF and the work it's doing, but I'm sorry to say that, in blocking all of Germany for everything, I do see a little bit of a reflection of this "screw the rest of the world" notion. Of course I do recognize that it's probably not borne out of pure bad attitude, but rather limited resources. When they clear works to be published, their clearance process is probably based only on U.S.-laws, and then they put it up globally. The solution would have to be to clear the rights on a matrix where every work needs to be looked at from the point of view of every jurisdiction, and access-controlled accordingly. Obviously that's a resource-intensive task, and I totally respect that PGLAF says they don't have the resources for that.
So really, what this is probably driving towards, is that every jurisdiction needs its own Project Gutenberg, with access restricted to that jurisdiction, and clearing rights according to its own laws. If a German legal expert reading this is interested in taking on such a task, please do get in touch. I'm up for the role of being the techie in this operation.
I think it's wrong for the U.S. to be a "safe haven" for people whose attitude towards the rest of the world is "screw you and your laws." That's exactly Google's legal strategy with privacy laws: They make sure everything they do when they violate E.U. privacy laws somehow comes under U.S. jurisdiction, which says something to the effect of "...well U.S.-based persons have a right to privacy, but, as for the rest of the world, dear Google, you hereby have permission to do whatever you want". (At least that's my non-expert understanding of U.S. privacy laws. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm a huge fan of PGLAF and the work it's doing, but I'm sorry to say that, in blocking all of Germany for everything, I do see a little bit of a reflection of this "screw the rest of the world" notion. Of course I do recognize that it's probably not borne out of pure bad attitude, but rather limited resources. When they clear works to be published, their clearance process is probably based only on U.S.-laws, and then they put it up globally. The solution would have to be to clear the rights on a matrix where every work needs to be looked at from the point of view of every jurisdiction, and access-controlled accordingly. Obviously that's a resource-intensive task, and I totally respect that PGLAF says they don't have the resources for that.
So really, what this is probably driving towards, is that every jurisdiction needs its own Project Gutenberg, with access restricted to that jurisdiction, and clearing rights according to its own laws. If a German legal expert reading this is interested in taking on such a task, please do get in touch. I'm up for the role of being the techie in this operation.
[deleted]
I can access www.gutenberg.org and sub-pages just fine from Germany. So the block doesn't seem to be active at the moment.
> Q: Why didn't Project Gutenberg simply remove the items?
> A: The is no reason to remove them. The 18 eBooks are all in the public domain in the US, and have been for many years. Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.
But why then even block access from Germany? If the stance is that "Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.", what is the rationale for the blocking.
There is also the German Projekt Gutenberg (http://projekt.gutenberg.de/) which is promoted by Spiegel Online (one of the most widely read German-language news websites [1]) even under their own domain as http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/. I don't know what kind of relationship the German Projekt Gutenberg has with PGLAF. The German Projekt Gutenberg is accessible for me from Germany right now, but apparently has blocked the controversial books. For example the page that lists Heinrich Mann's works says about the book "Der Untertan": "Exists in Projekt Gutenberg-DE, but is blocked until 31.12.2020" {"Im Projekt Gutenberg-DE vorhanden (gesperrt bis 31.12.2020)"} [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_Online
[2] http://projekt.gutenberg.de/autor/heinrich-mann-1637