7 ms·

> 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 countr

by jaakl 9y ago

> 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.

tyingq 9y ago
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.
quasarj 9y ago
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!
- coldtea 9y ago
  You mock what the parent said, but yet, if something isn't legal in the USA, most would find it OK to be cut.
  - jaakl 9y ago
    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.
stale2002 9y ago
> 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.
- freeflight 9y ago
  > 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-fi-in-germany/ https://qz.com/694618/why-is-it-impossible-to-find-free-wi-f... [1] https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an-impressum/ https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an-impressum/
  - lovich 9y ago
    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
    - freeflight 9y ago
      > 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.
JorgeGT 9y ago
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 9y ago
[deleted]
greenyoda 9y ago
> 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16512068
- sentenza 9y ago
  > 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.
zmmmmm 9y ago
> 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.

by jaakl 9y ago

tyingq 9y ago

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.

quasarj 9y ago

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!

coldtea 9y ago
You mock what the parent said, but yet, if something isn't legal in the USA, most would find it OK to be cut.
- jaakl 9y ago
  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.

stale2002 9y ago

> 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.

freeflight 9y ago
> 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-fi-in-germany/ https://qz.com/694618/why-is-it-impossible-to-find-free-wi-f... [1] https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an-impressum/ https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an-impressum/
- lovich 9y ago
  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
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > 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.

JorgeGT 9y ago

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 9y ago

[deleted]

greenyoda 9y ago

> 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16512068

sentenza 9y ago
> 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.

zmmmmm 9y ago

> 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.