3 ms·

I think you're misinterpreting it. The courts mean that this is an implicit acknowledgement that the contents featured on the Gutenberg website isn't necessaril

by detuur 9y ago

I think you're misinterpreting it. The courts mean that this is an implicit acknowledgement that the contents featured on the Gutenberg website isn't necessarily legal everywhere in the world, and that local laws may apply. If this website was aimed solely at Americans, this notice would be moot. It's like a Russian child pornography site warning that American members might be investigated by the FBI. If it didn't care about American members, it wouldn't put out such notice.

stordoff 9y ago
It's a reminder to _users_; the implication is that whilst there is no legal impediment to them hosting the files, a user accessing them make violate local laws. It's an acknowledgement that PG cannot know the laws of every jurisdiction as they apply to every user - I'm not sure how it could be seen as suggesting those laws directly bind PG. Likewise in your example, merely warning user _shouldn't_ make the operators subject to a foreign court. Said court would be able to seize equipment in its jurisdiction, pursue local users, compel payment processors not to do business with them etc., but a site operating legally wholly within its home jurisdiction (i.e. location of staff/business/servers etc.) shouldn't be subject to an overseas court merely because it is accessible from that location. It seems almost untenable that a site could comply with the local laws of every possible jurisdiction that may access the site.
- detuur 9y ago
  I'm not claiming that just the disclaimer is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Far from. But courts have a tendency to attempt to take every little detail into regard, even if it weighs very lightly in the presence of other arguments. In this case, having German language options and German volunteer staff is to me, personally, enough reason to state that the website is targeting Germans and that this requires compliance with German laws. If it weren't, it would be too easy to skirt jurisdiction and violate all kinds of laws. While this, indeed, does mean you have to comply with the local laws of every possible jurisdiction, that's exactly what's happening today. Sometimes it's easier to comply (like Youtube blocking videos in Turkey), sometimes it's easier to pull out (like Google pulling out of China), and sometimes you just really don't care and let them do whatever they want (get yourself blocked like Facebook in many banana republics). It all boils down to how much effort you want to put in. Filtering certain content on your site can quickly prove laborious, as opposed to the trivial effort of just instituting a blanket IP ban as a response to takedown requests. If you don't heed foreign courts, you're just asking for trouble. You might be out of their jurisdiction today but get into hot water when you ever travel there. You can't have your cake and eat it too, just like you can't make content available to citizens of a foreign jurisdiction without complying to their laws.

by detuur 9y ago

stordoff 9y ago

It's a reminder to _users_; the implication is that whilst there is no legal impediment to them hosting the files, a user accessing them make violate local laws. It's an acknowledgement that PG cannot know the laws of every jurisdiction as they apply to every user - I'm not sure how it could be seen as suggesting those laws directly bind PG. Likewise in your example, merely warning user _shouldn't_ make the operators subject to a foreign court. Said court would be able to seize equipment in its jurisdiction, pursue local users, compel payment processors not to do business with them etc., but a site operating legally wholly within its home jurisdiction (i.e. location of staff/business/servers etc.) shouldn't be subject to an overseas court merely because it is accessible from that location. It seems almost untenable that a site could comply with the local laws of every possible jurisdiction that may access the site.

detuur 9y ago
I'm not claiming that just the disclaimer is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Far from. But courts have a tendency to attempt to take every little detail into regard, even if it weighs very lightly in the presence of other arguments. In this case, having German language options and German volunteer staff is to me, personally, enough reason to state that the website is targeting Germans and that this requires compliance with German laws. If it weren't, it would be too easy to skirt jurisdiction and violate all kinds of laws. While this, indeed, does mean you have to comply with the local laws of every possible jurisdiction, that's exactly what's happening today. Sometimes it's easier to comply (like Youtube blocking videos in Turkey), sometimes it's easier to pull out (like Google pulling out of China), and sometimes you just really don't care and let them do whatever they want (get yourself blocked like Facebook in many banana republics). It all boils down to how much effort you want to put in. Filtering certain content on your site can quickly prove laborious, as opposed to the trivial effort of just instituting a blanket IP ban as a response to takedown requests. If you don't heed foreign courts, you're just asking for trouble. You might be out of their jurisdiction today but get into hot water when you ever travel there. You can't have your cake and eat it too, just like you can't make content available to citizens of a foreign jurisdiction without complying to their laws.