3 ms·
> 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 availa
by 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 agoFor 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 agoAlso, it was a great rebuke to S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH.
- Xylakant 9y agoAt 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 agoYes, 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 agoI’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 agoThey 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 agoAn 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.
- mirimir 9y agoI'm sure that ISPs could block particular URLs.
- tscs37 9y agoOnly for HTTP requests, any HTTPS or non-HTTP request is not as easy to block. Most site blocks are on the DNS level as they aren't particularly complicated.
- mcguire 9y agoThe court did not order the books blocked, it ordered them taken down and for PG to pay damages.
- Xylakant 9y ago> 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. They already are if they target users in a given country. Lack of international enforcement just means that they might escape enforcement. See also GDPR, the US case against Mega, a company run by a NZ resident and incorporated in Hongkong IIRC. See also how Twitter blocks certain tweets in certain countries lest they’re blocked completely. Same holds true for Facebook. Google censors certain autocomplete and searches in some countries. They also adhere to the EU “right to be forgotten” regulations - despite being an US company.
- 2ion 9y agoRegardless 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 agoHowever, it's reasonably proportional to the implications of the ruling.
- caf 9y agoThese 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 agoIt 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.