3 ms·

Same thing that happens to any other service provider: they might lose the ability to do business in Germany or even get blocked if they knowingly continue viol

by pluma 11y ago

Same thing that happens to any other service provider: they might lose the ability to do business in Germany or even get blocked if they knowingly continue violating German law. Granted, for Wikimedia there would be less at stake than for, say, Facebook, but it should be obvious why an organization offering a localized service might be interested in staying within the bounds of the laws of whatever locale they are targeting. I doubt Wikimedia Deutschland would fare well if their US-based parent organisation disregarded rulings of German courts, especially when it comes to protecting the privacy of German citizens. Compare it to, say, US courts suing a EU or Chinese company. Sure, they don't necessarily have any means to enforce the ruling against the foreign company but it would likely be in the company's best interests to follow the ruling if they want to continue providing their services in the US.

avar 11y ago
> I doubt Wikimedia Deutschland would fare well > if their US-based parent organisation disregarded > rulings of German courts. Well, this has always been the interesting case with these lawsuits against Wikipedia/Wikimedia. The local chapters do not in any way run their respective language editions. After all, why would the Wikimedia Germany and not the Austria or Switzerland chapter run the German Wikipedia? Even if the heat was turned up on Wikimedia Deutschland as a result of something like this they'd be unable to dictate what goes into their language editions of Wikipedia. The local chapters simply have nothing to do with the editorial policy. There are plenty of German speakers who edit Wikipedia who live outside of Germany, some even live in the U.S. Is a German court ruling going to decide whether a German speaker living in the U.S. can insert factual information into a U.S.-hosted encyclopedia article about some subject pertinent to Germany? The entire legal framework around this sort of thing is based on the assumption of locally published paper media, and it's really interesting to see how these cases are treated in the Internet age where it's not a case of local publishing in your country, but your citizens fetching foreign-published information over international boundaries. So I'm genuinely curious to know what their standing in the case was considered to be.
- matt4077 11y ago
  There are certain legal doctrines (and treaties) regarding standing. I don't know about the situation between Germany/the EU vis-a-vis the US, but, as an example, the EU rules specify that in almost all cases consumers get to sue / can only be sued at their place of residence (unless they consent to a different venue). This is to ensure a somewhat level playing field, since the consumer is usually the weaker party. I would argue that, even though it's not a consumer vs. company lawsuit the situation is comparable and it's fair to empower her with the choice of venue. I also don't see it as an unreasonable burden to consider the legal situation in Germany when you're publishing information about a German citizen, in German. This isn't some Pakistani court imposing sharia law on HBO because people could possibly watch it in Karachi if they have the right VPN. The alternative interpretation of some of these comments is that basically no law should apply to the internet. Even though I have some sympathy for the techno-anarcho mindset (fuck that stupid cookie regulation!), I would argue that if anything that happens online has any power, that power requires checks that go beyond 'might is right'. And even acknowledging all their faults, I haven't come across a better method than a democratically legitimated court of law. (Having said all that: she lost, the system is working).

by pluma 11y ago

avar 11y ago

> I doubt Wikimedia Deutschland would fare well > if their US-based parent organisation disregarded > rulings of German courts. Well, this has always been the interesting case with these lawsuits against Wikipedia/Wikimedia. The local chapters do not in any way run their respective language editions. After all, why would the Wikimedia Germany and not the Austria or Switzerland chapter run the German Wikipedia? Even if the heat was turned up on Wikimedia Deutschland as a result of something like this they'd be unable to dictate what goes into their language editions of Wikipedia. The local chapters simply have nothing to do with the editorial policy. There are plenty of German speakers who edit Wikipedia who live outside of Germany, some even live in the U.S. Is a German court ruling going to decide whether a German speaker living in the U.S. can insert factual information into a U.S.-hosted encyclopedia article about some subject pertinent to Germany? The entire legal framework around this sort of thing is based on the assumption of locally published paper media, and it's really interesting to see how these cases are treated in the Internet age where it's not a case of local publishing in your country, but your citizens fetching foreign-published information over international boundaries. So I'm genuinely curious to know what their standing in the case was considered to be.

matt4077 11y ago
There are certain legal doctrines (and treaties) regarding standing. I don't know about the situation between Germany/the EU vis-a-vis the US, but, as an example, the EU rules specify that in almost all cases consumers get to sue / can only be sued at their place of residence (unless they consent to a different venue). This is to ensure a somewhat level playing field, since the consumer is usually the weaker party. I would argue that, even though it's not a consumer vs. company lawsuit the situation is comparable and it's fair to empower her with the choice of venue. I also don't see it as an unreasonable burden to consider the legal situation in Germany when you're publishing information about a German citizen, in German. This isn't some Pakistani court imposing sharia law on HBO because people could possibly watch it in Karachi if they have the right VPN. The alternative interpretation of some of these comments is that basically no law should apply to the internet. Even though I have some sympathy for the techno-anarcho mindset (fuck that stupid cookie regulation!), I would argue that if anything that happens online has any power, that power requires checks that go beyond 'might is right'. And even acknowledging all their faults, I haven't come across a better method than a democratically legitimated court of law. (Having said all that: she lost, the system is working).