6 ms·

> 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

by 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.
  - andrewprock 9y ago
    Most speakers of German don't live in Germany. There are roughly 200 million German speakers in the world, but only 82 million residents of Germany.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      Sure, you know what I mean though.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
harshreality 9y ago
None of those pass muster. 1. There are plenty of German-speakers not living in Germany. 2. Is that organization somehow affiliated with project gutenberg? Or did it simply use the name, which gutenberg probably doesn't care to trademark and wouldn't have the funds to legally enforce anyway. 3. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us. 4. So all it takes to be subject to a country's courts is for that country's media to bring up your activities? If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian countries' laws should be illegal, with those responsible subject to the authoritarian regimes' legal systems. That is untenable if you have an ounce of respect for free speech or liberal values or a free internet. Apply the reasoning to the laws of certain Middle Eastern countries. China. North Korea.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  > Is that organization somehow affiliated with project gutenberg? Or did it simply use the name, which gutenberg probably doesn't care to trademark and wouldn't have the funds to legally enforce anyway. The failure to protect their trademark in Germany would actually demonstrate that they are not operating in Germany.
- jhasse 9y ago
  Those points can't be picked apart like you did. They add up and make it reasonable to argue that gutenberg.org is very well known in Germany and that lots of Germans have downloaded the books in question. The copyright owners are still selling those here and have probably already lost sales due to this. They tried to contact gutenberg.org, but where ignored. This isn't about free speech amd censorship. > If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian countries' laws should be illegal illegal where? > 3. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us. I really didn't know. .de is very common in Germany.
  - harshreality 9y ago
    > illegal where? On the internet, where project gutenberg is located. The argument put forward, that you repeated, implies just as much that someone could be prosecuted in a Chinese court for publishing a harsh (to the point of being illegal in China) criticism of China named freexinjiang.com, at least if the site included a Chinese version. And that, since it refers specifically to a Chinese province/area, would have at least some nexus to China, whereas Project Gutenberg has zero connection to Germany. Arguing the connection by language (the fact that German-language books of note exist to be digitized does not imply a connection to Germany the country) or Gutenberg's biography (what does the nationality of Gutenberg the historical person have to do with anything? Is shakespeare.com subject to uk laws?) is insanity. > I really didn't know [.us isn't commonly used] I didn't realize how this might not be intuitive to people in other countries, so... The U.S. mostly invented / was the testbed for the internet. It's standard in the U.S., and for almost any English-language website that's not seeking to be tied to a specific country of origin, to use .com .net or .org. I get that people in countries where English isn't official or where they're targeting the country's population as visitors will prefer .cc tlds either to indicate that their site targets that country's residents, or targets people who speak that country's primary language, but .us is not at all the norm in the USA; .com .net and .org generally serve that purpose, and .us is a distant fourth [1]. But, supposing .us were the primary domain used by U.S. organizations, even if Project Gutenberg didn't use .org but instead used a generic TLD, it would still have zero to do with Germany. [1] It's actually 6th, behind .xyz and .info, but those two probably have a higher percentage of spammy junk websites and email domains, so .us might be fourth in domains that aren't junk ecommerce advertising sites.
rphlx 9y ago
Without commenting on the other arguments-#3 seems ludicrous. Claiming that a country's local law applies to an institution in another country "because it's named after someone who lived in our territory" seems a pretty ethically and legally impotent argument. Especially when you consider that "Germany" in its current sense did not exist until many hundreds of years after Gutenberg died. Should modern French courts get to censor any global website using "Louis" in the domain? "Napoleon"? Or does it only apply to last names?
- jhasse 9y ago
  It was just a small point which might make German think "this is a website that is legal in Germany" or even "this is a website from an entity in Germany". But it isn't, it's a US website, legal in the US and illegal in Germany.
sib 9y ago
1) So? There are many German-speakers who live in the US and in other countries outside of Germany. There is a huge difference between "targeting" people who speak German and those who live in Germany. 2) So they should sue to block that one if they believe it is doing something wrong. 3) Huh? What possible difference does it make what country someone born in 1468 was born in? And, apparently it's a sad state of affairs in Germany today compared to the time of Gutenberg who actually did something to increase access to written materials. 4) So they should sue the German media for mentioning it. I'm pretty sure that the Project Gutenberg team can't stop the German media from mentioning their web site. It's a US-based web site, with US-based staff, with no Germany-based connections or business. It's clear that it is outside the proper jurisdiction of German courts and that the only reason for reaching this decision is economically-driven corruption. The whole thing is embarrassing. Or, you could ask every Germany-based web site to obey all the laws of every country in the world.
bloaf 9y ago
1. The german language page is actually targeting Liechtenstein, not Germany. 2. Similar projects are not the actual project in question. 3. ICANN is not a governmental agency; filing for a particular TLD is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for belonging to a particular country's jurisdiction. Being named after a 15th century German is not an argument worthy of response. 4. Popularity in a country is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for that country to have jurisdiction over an organization.
mcguire 9y ago
"The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined. "Alternatively, international treaties - notably the Berne Convention and related treaties - provide mediation processes through the World Intellectual Property Organization. PGLAF offered to undergo this mediation process, and Plaintiff declined."
sseth 9y ago
On point 3 : The fact that the (original) Gutenberg is in germany is irrelevant. Gutenberg here refers to the Gutenberg bible, not the place. And in any case are we now assigning global trademark rights to cities / countries for names used in their jurisdiction? To give an example, Budweiser would be subject to Czech jurisdiction, since it is named after a Czech town. This is not much of an argument.
Bizarro 9y ago
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. And once again we get this lie being said around here. You should really just be honest with your political comments and come out with what you really want to say.
- jhasse 9y ago
  I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you want to imply that the prosecutor lied about this?

by jhasse 9y ago

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.
- andrewprock 9y ago
  Most speakers of German don't live in Germany. There are roughly 200 million German speakers in the world, but only 82 million residents of Germany.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    Sure, you know what I mean though.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

harshreality 9y ago

None of those pass muster. 1. There are plenty of German-speakers not living in Germany. 2. Is that organization somehow affiliated with project gutenberg? Or did it simply use the name, which gutenberg probably doesn't care to trademark and wouldn't have the funds to legally enforce anyway. 3. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us. 4. So all it takes to be subject to a country's courts is for that country's media to bring up your activities? If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian countries' laws should be illegal, with those responsible subject to the authoritarian regimes' legal systems. That is untenable if you have an ounce of respect for free speech or liberal values or a free internet. Apply the reasoning to the laws of certain Middle Eastern countries. China. North Korea.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
> Is that organization somehow affiliated with project gutenberg? Or did it simply use the name, which gutenberg probably doesn't care to trademark and wouldn't have the funds to legally enforce anyway. The failure to protect their trademark in Germany would actually demonstrate that they are not operating in Germany.
jhasse 9y ago
Those points can't be picked apart like you did. They add up and make it reasonable to argue that gutenberg.org is very well known in Germany and that lots of Germans have downloaded the books in question. The copyright owners are still selling those here and have probably already lost sales due to this. They tried to contact gutenberg.org, but where ignored. This isn't about free speech amd censorship. > If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian countries' laws should be illegal illegal where? > 3. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us. I really didn't know. .de is very common in Germany.
- harshreality 9y ago
  > illegal where? On the internet, where project gutenberg is located. The argument put forward, that you repeated, implies just as much that someone could be prosecuted in a Chinese court for publishing a harsh (to the point of being illegal in China) criticism of China named freexinjiang.com, at least if the site included a Chinese version. And that, since it refers specifically to a Chinese province/area, would have at least some nexus to China, whereas Project Gutenberg has zero connection to Germany. Arguing the connection by language (the fact that German-language books of note exist to be digitized does not imply a connection to Germany the country) or Gutenberg's biography (what does the nationality of Gutenberg the historical person have to do with anything? Is shakespeare.com subject to uk laws?) is insanity. > I really didn't know [.us isn't commonly used] I didn't realize how this might not be intuitive to people in other countries, so... The U.S. mostly invented / was the testbed for the internet. It's standard in the U.S., and for almost any English-language website that's not seeking to be tied to a specific country of origin, to use .com .net or .org. I get that people in countries where English isn't official or where they're targeting the country's population as visitors will prefer .cc tlds either to indicate that their site targets that country's residents, or targets people who speak that country's primary language, but .us is not at all the norm in the USA; .com .net and .org generally serve that purpose, and .us is a distant fourth [1]. But, supposing .us were the primary domain used by U.S. organizations, even if Project Gutenberg didn't use .org but instead used a generic TLD, it would still have zero to do with Germany. [1] It's actually 6th, behind .xyz and .info, but those two probably have a higher percentage of spammy junk websites and email domains, so .us might be fourth in domains that aren't junk ecommerce advertising sites.

rphlx 9y ago

Without commenting on the other arguments-#3 seems ludicrous. Claiming that a country's local law applies to an institution in another country "because it's named after someone who lived in our territory" seems a pretty ethically and legally impotent argument. Especially when you consider that "Germany" in its current sense did not exist until many hundreds of years after Gutenberg died. Should modern French courts get to censor any global website using "Louis" in the domain? "Napoleon"? Or does it only apply to last names?

jhasse 9y ago
It was just a small point which might make German think "this is a website that is legal in Germany" or even "this is a website from an entity in Germany". But it isn't, it's a US website, legal in the US and illegal in Germany.

sib 9y ago

1) So? There are many German-speakers who live in the US and in other countries outside of Germany. There is a huge difference between "targeting" people who speak German and those who live in Germany. 2) So they should sue to block that one if they believe it is doing something wrong. 3) Huh? What possible difference does it make what country someone born in 1468 was born in? And, apparently it's a sad state of affairs in Germany today compared to the time of Gutenberg who actually did something to increase access to written materials. 4) So they should sue the German media for mentioning it. I'm pretty sure that the Project Gutenberg team can't stop the German media from mentioning their web site. It's a US-based web site, with US-based staff, with no Germany-based connections or business. It's clear that it is outside the proper jurisdiction of German courts and that the only reason for reaching this decision is economically-driven corruption. The whole thing is embarrassing. Or, you could ask every Germany-based web site to obey all the laws of every country in the world.

bloaf 9y ago

1. The german language page is actually targeting Liechtenstein, not Germany. 2. Similar projects are not the actual project in question. 3. ICANN is not a governmental agency; filing for a particular TLD is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for belonging to a particular country's jurisdiction. Being named after a 15th century German is not an argument worthy of response. 4. Popularity in a country is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for that country to have jurisdiction over an organization.

mcguire 9y ago

"The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined. "Alternatively, international treaties - notably the Berne Convention and related treaties - provide mediation processes through the World Intellectual Property Organization. PGLAF offered to undergo this mediation process, and Plaintiff declined."

sseth 9y ago

On point 3 : The fact that the (original) Gutenberg is in germany is irrelevant. Gutenberg here refers to the Gutenberg bible, not the place. And in any case are we now assigning global trademark rights to cities / countries for names used in their jurisdiction? To give an example, Budweiser would be subject to Czech jurisdiction, since it is named after a Czech town. This is not much of an argument.

Bizarro 9y ago

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. And once again we get this lie being said around here. You should really just be honest with your political comments and come out with what you really want to say.

jhasse 9y ago
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you want to imply that the prosecutor lied about this?