11 ms·

> 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 m

> 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.

Findus23 9y ago
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.
- robjwells 9y ago
  > 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.
  - madhadron 9y ago
    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.
    - tonyztan 9y ago
      They can go for the ISPs, or push for some German law to restrict local access. Doesn't mean they should, though.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        Again, said ISPs are US-based, and the only precedent for blocking in the US is DMCA, which considers these works public domain.
        tonyztan 9y ago
        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.
- cloakandswagger 9y ago
  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.
  - Tomte 9y ago
    You don‘t want to tell me that a US court would show any restraint if a non-US based person violated American copyright?
    - mcguire 9y ago
      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?"
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      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.
  - Mindwipe 9y ago
    I think you have a big shock coming about how international law works and applies to websites outside of their country.
jhasse 9y ago
> 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/ 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.
- pgtan 9y ago
  > 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.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    > Doitsche Welle What?
    - philippnagel 9y ago
      I guess dw.com.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  Because all German speaking people reside in Germany right?
  - jhasse 9y ago
    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.
johnmax 9y ago
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)
- sparkie 9y ago
  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.
piotrkaminski 9y ago
> 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?
- Tomte 9y ago
  Of course it would be fair. Because EU citizens would be harmed. That‘s the duty of a state. Protect its citizens.
  - freeone3000 9y ago
    EU Citizens are harmed here! Those publishers are being denied income because a site is hosting content they hold German copyright for, for free!
- robjwells 9y ago
  (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.
Mindwipe 9y ago
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...
- robjwells 9y ago
  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.
- ashelmire 9y ago
  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.
darklajid 9y ago
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)
squiggleblaz 9y ago
> 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.

Findus23 9y ago

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.

robjwells 9y ago
> 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.
- madhadron 9y ago
  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.
  - tonyztan 9y ago
    They can go for the ISPs, or push for some German law to restrict local access. Doesn't mean they should, though.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Again, said ISPs are US-based, and the only precedent for blocking in the US is DMCA, which considers these works public domain.
      - tonyztan 9y ago
        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.
cloakandswagger 9y ago
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.
- Tomte 9y ago
  You don‘t want to tell me that a US court would show any restraint if a non-US based person violated American copyright?
  - mcguire 9y ago
    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?"
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    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.
- Mindwipe 9y ago
  I think you have a big shock coming about how international law works and applies to websites outside of their country.

jhasse 9y ago

> 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/ 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.

pgtan 9y ago
> 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.
- jhasse 9y ago
  > Doitsche Welle What?
  - philippnagel 9y ago
    I guess dw.com.
LoSboccacc 9y ago
Because all German speaking people reside in Germany right?
- jhasse 9y ago
  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.

johnmax 9y ago

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)

sparkie 9y ago
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.

piotrkaminski 9y ago

> 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?

Tomte 9y ago
Of course it would be fair. Because EU citizens would be harmed. That‘s the duty of a state. Protect its citizens.
- freeone3000 9y ago
  EU Citizens are harmed here! Those publishers are being denied income because a site is hosting content they hold German copyright for, for free!
robjwells 9y ago
(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.

Mindwipe 9y ago

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...

robjwells 9y ago
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.
ashelmire 9y ago
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.

darklajid 9y ago

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)

squiggleblaz 9y ago

> 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.