7 ms·

The explanation is at least slightly dishonest (hopefully not intentionally) in claiming that jurisdiction was established due to content being available in Ger

by zorked 9y ago

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.

thesimon 9y ago
>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.
lowry 9y ago
Definitely intentionally. Shame on Project Gutenberg and their lawyers.
freeflight 9y ago
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.
KenoFischer 9y ago
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.
- zmmmmm 9y ago
  > 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".
  - detuur 9y ago
    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.
    - stordoff 9y ago
      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.
      - detuur 9y ago
        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.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
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?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > 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.

by zorked 9y ago

thesimon 9y ago

>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.

lowry 9y ago

Definitely intentionally. Shame on Project Gutenberg and their lawyers.

freeflight 9y ago

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.

KenoFischer 9y ago

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.

zmmmmm 9y ago
> 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".
- detuur 9y ago
  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.
  - stordoff 9y ago
    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.
    - detuur 9y ago
      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.

TulliusCicero 9y ago

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?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> 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.