5 ms·

But in Germany by law all websites must publish information about the publisher, including their name and address, telephone number or e-mail address, trade reg

But in Germany by law all websites must publish information about the publisher, including their name and address, telephone number or e-mail address, trade registry number, VAT number, and other information depending on the type of company. all this seems fine according to eu law so I am not sure why dns registration is any diferent

kuschku 9y ago
Because you publish yourself, you can change it yourself, and you can take it down again yourself. And as a reminder, the German rule only applies to commercial sites — a site with no ads and no way to pay such as quasseldroid.info does not need an Imprint.
- dx034 9y ago
  Unless you provide journalistic content. Then you could be required to have an imprint as well. I was always wondering if they overturn this at some point. I don't know of any other country requiring it and I doubt that it helps taking down illicit content. If anything, it helps consultants for offshore companies.
  - cJ0th 9y ago
    I hate this law with a passion. It doesn't seem proportionate to me at all. The main beneficiaries are folks who want to sell addresses in bulk and dodgy lawyers ("Abmahnanwälte"). I'd be fine with depositing my personal date somewhere so that people with legitimate concerns can contact me but it should require some effort so that the function can't be abused.
- cJ0th 9y ago
  > And as a reminder, the German rule only applies to commercial sites — a site with no ads and no way to pay such as quasseldroid.info does not need an Imprint. I wouldn't be too sure. There is, unfortunately, a lot of room for interpretation with this law. Rather cautious adviser urge you to have one as long as your website isn't private in the sense that can't be accessed by the public (i.e. a website for family members that can only be accessed with a password). This law (IANAL) is just horrible.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    How is it horrible? The law just requires a way to contact a person within of a few days, and a way to be able to get the person behind a site to be able to sue them. The alternative is sites that you can't do anything against if they act illegally against you, e.g. through libel and slander.
    - gsich 9y ago
      Email address is enough for that.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        An email address is no Vorladungsfähige Adresse. You can't sue that, you can't send a Gerichtsvollzieher to it, and you can't seize the owners assets with it. If I want to send an Abmahnung to a website owner, because they publicly defame me — as has happened before — then I need something stronger than an email address. Or I need to invoke the right to be forgotten, but I don't want to do so, I prefer having a way to eliminate the source.
        gsich 9y ago
        You are talking about an Impressum. No need for that info in the whois.
        kuschku 9y ago
        The topic was Impressum. The user starting this subthread complained about Impressum.
    - cJ0th 9y ago
      I agree that you should be able to get in contact with the website owner. However, I believe it'd be better if a person had to at least query denic to get your address. That's easy enough if you have to resolve a serious matter and the website owner is also a bit more protected against abuse of their data.
detaro 9y ago
Commercial sites, not all sites. My private homepage doesn't need it, since I don't have ads and don't advertise my own products or services on it.
- astura 9y ago
  Playing devil's advocate, it can be argued in some cases that even if your private homepage met that criteria, its purposes could be to advertise/establish/further your personal "brand" thus is for business purposes. For example, if you blogged about technical topics that could benefit your employment opportunities in the technical fields and get you speaking engagements. There's examples of people who have built careers solely from personal blogs/homepages.
- MrGilbert 9y ago
  There are a lot of uncertainties in this area. For example, if you provide journalistic content on your website (e.g. regular blog postings, even for free),then this could be interpreted as an opinion-forming activity, which in turn requires an imprint. (Source [German]: https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/datenschutz/209.html https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/datenschutz/209.html )
  - SyneRyder 9y ago
    The Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz seems to give a similar opinion: http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Verbraucherportal/DigitalesTelekommunikation/Impressumspflicht/Impressumspflicht_node.html http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Verbraucherportal/DigitalesTelekommuni... I'm reading from the English translation here, but it suggests that "businesslike" also includes something that is ongoing / sustained. So if your personal blog is posted every Tuesday, it could be said that is "businesslike" (geschäftsmäßig). They also specify that profit is not a requirement.
    - blattimwind 9y ago
      The "I have a blog and now I need an imprint" faction is essentially FUD. Geschäftsmäßig doesn't require Gewinnerzielungsabsicht (intent to make a profit), but does actually require an intent to make business, in whatever form, but not necessarily on the site itself. For example, a business owner having a very simple website just stating what his business does will require an imprint on that site, because obviously the intent of the website is to inform about his business. If, on the other hand, you have a blog with no ads about your kittens then you don't need an imprint. Just because something is an unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff (non-exhaustively defined law term) doesn't mean you can just go ahead and act as if it means anything you like.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gsich 9y ago
Domain != website

kuschku 9y ago

Because you publish yourself, you can change it yourself, and you can take it down again yourself. And as a reminder, the German rule only applies to commercial sites — a site with no ads and no way to pay such as quasseldroid.info does not need an Imprint.

dx034 9y ago
Unless you provide journalistic content. Then you could be required to have an imprint as well. I was always wondering if they overturn this at some point. I don't know of any other country requiring it and I doubt that it helps taking down illicit content. If anything, it helps consultants for offshore companies.
- cJ0th 9y ago
  I hate this law with a passion. It doesn't seem proportionate to me at all. The main beneficiaries are folks who want to sell addresses in bulk and dodgy lawyers ("Abmahnanwälte"). I'd be fine with depositing my personal date somewhere so that people with legitimate concerns can contact me but it should require some effort so that the function can't be abused.
cJ0th 9y ago
> And as a reminder, the German rule only applies to commercial sites — a site with no ads and no way to pay such as quasseldroid.info does not need an Imprint. I wouldn't be too sure. There is, unfortunately, a lot of room for interpretation with this law. Rather cautious adviser urge you to have one as long as your website isn't private in the sense that can't be accessed by the public (i.e. a website for family members that can only be accessed with a password). This law (IANAL) is just horrible.
- kuschku 9y ago
  How is it horrible? The law just requires a way to contact a person within of a few days, and a way to be able to get the person behind a site to be able to sue them. The alternative is sites that you can't do anything against if they act illegally against you, e.g. through libel and slander.
  - gsich 9y ago
    Email address is enough for that.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      An email address is no Vorladungsfähige Adresse. You can't sue that, you can't send a Gerichtsvollzieher to it, and you can't seize the owners assets with it. If I want to send an Abmahnung to a website owner, because they publicly defame me — as has happened before — then I need something stronger than an email address. Or I need to invoke the right to be forgotten, but I don't want to do so, I prefer having a way to eliminate the source.
      - gsich 9y ago
        You are talking about an Impressum. No need for that info in the whois.
        kuschku 9y ago
        The topic was Impressum. The user starting this subthread complained about Impressum.
  - cJ0th 9y ago
    I agree that you should be able to get in contact with the website owner. However, I believe it'd be better if a person had to at least query denic to get your address. That's easy enough if you have to resolve a serious matter and the website owner is also a bit more protected against abuse of their data.

detaro 9y ago

Commercial sites, not all sites. My private homepage doesn't need it, since I don't have ads and don't advertise my own products or services on it.

astura 9y ago
Playing devil's advocate, it can be argued in some cases that even if your private homepage met that criteria, its purposes could be to advertise/establish/further your personal "brand" thus is for business purposes. For example, if you blogged about technical topics that could benefit your employment opportunities in the technical fields and get you speaking engagements. There's examples of people who have built careers solely from personal blogs/homepages.
MrGilbert 9y ago
There are a lot of uncertainties in this area. For example, if you provide journalistic content on your website (e.g. regular blog postings, even for free),then this could be interpreted as an opinion-forming activity, which in turn requires an imprint. (Source [German]: https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/datenschutz/209.html https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/datenschutz/209.html )
- SyneRyder 9y ago
  The Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz seems to give a similar opinion: http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Verbraucherportal/DigitalesTelekommunikation/Impressumspflicht/Impressumspflicht_node.html http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Verbraucherportal/DigitalesTelekommuni... I'm reading from the English translation here, but it suggests that "businesslike" also includes something that is ongoing / sustained. So if your personal blog is posted every Tuesday, it could be said that is "businesslike" (geschäftsmäßig). They also specify that profit is not a requirement.
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    The "I have a blog and now I need an imprint" faction is essentially FUD. Geschäftsmäßig doesn't require Gewinnerzielungsabsicht (intent to make a profit), but does actually require an intent to make business, in whatever form, but not necessarily on the site itself. For example, a business owner having a very simple website just stating what his business does will require an imprint on that site, because obviously the intent of the website is to inform about his business. If, on the other hand, you have a blog with no ads about your kittens then you don't need an imprint. Just because something is an unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff (non-exhaustively defined law term) doesn't mean you can just go ahead and act as if it means anything you like.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gsich 9y ago

Domain != website