12 ms·

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

by 2ion 9y ago

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.

Xylakant 9y ago
> 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.
- falcolas 9y ago
  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.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Also, it was a great rebuke to S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      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!
      - mirimir 9y ago
        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.
        Xylakant 9y ago
        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.
        mirimir 9y ago
        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.
        tscs37 9y ago
        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.
- 2ion 9y ago
  Regardless of what the court supports, this outcome is the direct effect of the court's ruling although it is not proportional to the scope of the ruling. Admittedly, I phrased it in a catchy manner.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    However, it's reasonably proportional to the implications of the ruling.
- caf 9y ago
  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.
  - taejo 9y ago
    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/ 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.
zanny 9y ago
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?
- specializeded 9y ago
  Perhaps the European interests fighting copyright regulation are stronger than the ones that fought privacy regulation. See: diesel
  - toyg 9y ago
    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.
    - detuur 9y ago
      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.

by 2ion 9y ago

Xylakant 9y ago

> 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.

falcolas 9y ago
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.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Also, it was a great rebuke to S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    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!
    - mirimir 9y ago
      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.
      - Xylakant 9y ago
        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.
        mirimir 9y ago
        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.
        tscs37 9y ago
        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.
2ion 9y ago
Regardless of what the court supports, this outcome is the direct effect of the court's ruling although it is not proportional to the scope of the ruling. Admittedly, I phrased it in a catchy manner.
- rhizome 9y ago
  However, it's reasonably proportional to the implications of the ruling.
caf 9y ago
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.
- taejo 9y ago
  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/ 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.

zanny 9y ago

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?

specializeded 9y ago
Perhaps the European interests fighting copyright regulation are stronger than the ones that fought privacy regulation. See: diesel
- toyg 9y ago
  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.
  - detuur 9y ago
    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.