
Project Gutenberg blocks access from Germany - jwildeboer
https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/index.html
======
CO-VAX
I just donated $100 to PGLAF because they are fighting the good fight. Their
donation page [0] includes "Think of this as a contribution to your
grandchildren." However in this instance I think of it as a contribution
against publishers (ab)using the justice system much like so-called patent
trolls.

> Q: The plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH. Is that the international
> conglomerate?

> A: Yes, it is part of a family of companies all under single ownership and
> control or majority stakeholdership, from Germany, reaching around the
> world. S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH is a unit of Verlagsgruppe Georg Holtzbrinck
> GmbH. Internationally it is known in the US and elsewhere as Holtzbrinck
> Publishers LLC. Readers in the US know this as Macmillan, which is one of
> the largest publishers in the US by revenue, and owns many familiar
> imprints. US readers might also recall that Macmillan was one of four
> companies accused by the US Dept. of Justice in 2012 of price fixing. The
> companies eventually settled the antitrust claims, including by giving
> credits to customers who had overpaid for eBooks.

[0]
[https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_N...](https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_Needs_Your_Donation)

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
I hope you don't mind that I take this opportunity to tell about he GFF,
because it is very much related. If you are European and care about freedom
rights, there is now an equivalent to the EFF/ACLU, called the "Gesellschaft
für Freiheitsrechte" (short GFF), which translates to "Society For Freedom
Rights".

They are mostly lawyers fighting strategic court battles in one of the
cheapest country to do so, which in Europe happens to be Germany. This is a
cost-effective way to further the cause of human and freedom rights.

If you are upset about

* excessive surveillance

* anti-whistleblower laws

* laws against freedom of information

then consider joining, they need your support to do what they do:
[https://freiheitsrechte.org/join/](https://freiheitsrechte.org/join/)

Disclaimer: I'm not involved with the GFF except as a paying member.

~~~
nabla9
European Digital Rights EDRi is the closest equivalent to the EFF in Europe.
EDRi is an association of civil and human rights organizations from across
Europe. It has existed since 2002.

[https://edri.org/](https://edri.org/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Digital_Rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Digital_Rights)

[https://edri.org/members/](https://edri.org/members/) (EFF from USA is also a
member)

GFF is more German centered organization. I don't know how it relates to other
German organizations like
[https://digitalcourage.de/](https://digitalcourage.de/) and
[https://digitalegesellschaft.de/](https://digitalegesellschaft.de/)

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
I have no idea why I never heard of them before, but this is the first time.
Thanks!

------
dsacco
Can someone in Germany confirm this block is actually in place?

In any case, if anyone in Germany would like to access Project Gutenberg, I
maintain a full, daily updated mirror here:
[https://mirrors.sorengard.com/gutenberg](https://mirrors.sorengard.com/gutenberg).
I also support FTP and Rsync if you’d like to download that way.

No donations are asked for, but it would be helpful if more people hosted
mirrors for precisely this reason :). Unfortunately this mirror doesn’t have
the search capabilities of the Project Gutenberg homepage, but it at least has
all the files.

Now I’m actually curious about what is going to happen with Project Gutenberg
mirrors. In general, many mirror admins (such as myself) join a project’s
mirror mailing list and don’t necessarily pay attention to the right
announcements to learn about this kind of legal minutia. That presents
something of a logistics problem all around.

Putting aside ethics, it’s likely that many/most downstream mirrors simply
won’t block German traffic. Project Gutenberg can stop redirecting German
traffic to those mirrors on the fly, but they can’t stop the mirrors from
being available unless they start banning mirrors (and mirror syncing traffic)
that don’t enforce similar blocks...this seems logistically untenable.

It would be cool if we could get a lawyer to chime in about Project
Gutenberg’s liability with respect to forcing other mirrors to comply. For
example, I’m making my own mirror available to Germany. Is Project Gutenberg
complicit in a meaningful sense, if they allow me to continue mirroring?

~~~
Tomte
I can still access it. No proxies or VPNs of any kind, just regular Telekom
DSL.

~~~
bhaak
According to heise.de, only IPv4 users are affected so far.

If you are using IPv6, you are still able to access it.

~~~
YtvwlD
Oh, wow.

Yes, it works here with IPv6.

------
curiousfab
PG did exactly the right thing here.

By only blocking these 18 books, nobody would have taken much notice of this.
By blocking all German users from the site, they will get a lot of media
attention, and S. Fischer Verlag will get a lot of bad press. Whether or not
they will move from their position is questionable, but it will hurt them.

Just sent a small donation to PG.

Making an effort not to buy books from that publishing house ever again, and
telling all my friends about it.

~~~
teamhappy
> Making an effort not to buy books from that publishing house ever again, and
> telling all my friends about it.

Good luck with that. S. Fischer is owned by Holtzbrinck. They own Macmillan,
Springer Nature and a bunch of other publishing houses. Here's a list of their
subsidiaries:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group#S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group#Subsidiaries_and_imprints)

~~~
scythe
Is it so uncommon for big companies to evaluate the performance of various
divisions independently? If Holtzbrinck recognizes that S. Fischer's
activities have caused that subsidiary to start losing money, they will
probably modify their opinion. Why would they want to subsidize a losing bet
using the profits from other divisions? The fact that two companies are owned
by the same holding group does not really mean they are the "same" company,
any more than two companies which are majority owned by the same private
investors are the same company.

~~~
teamhappy
S. Fischer isn't just a independent subsidiary. The company is run by Monika
Schoeller (born Monika von Holtzbrinck). She and her brother own large parts
of Holtzbrinck and she's listed as a partner and member of the supervisory
board on Holtzbrinck's website. (Her brother, Stefan von Holtzbrinck, is the
CEO.)

> Why would they want to subsidize a losing bet using the profits from other
> divisions?

Because owning S. Fischer, Rowohlt and Droemer Knaur means owning a large
chunk of the german book market.

------
2ion
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.

~~~
zanny
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?

~~~
toyg
1) the EU moving away from US economic and foreign policy is a relatively
recent development. On most issues, from Crimea to copyright, you can usually
start from the assumption that European and American positions are somewhat
aligned. The exceptions (privacy etc) are well-known exactly because they are
exceptions.

2) EU countries have a significant skin in the creative-sector game, in a way
they really don't in other segments. In tech the US are more or less dominant,
most "Big Bad Corps" are American, hence it's easier to attack. As soon as big
European interests are in the picture, things naturally become harder. In this
case, the incriminated books are by top German authors and likely contribute a
pretty penny to the publisher's bottom line.

3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always
talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of
treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the
various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their
neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have
competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different
economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a
court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well
happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some
point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change.

 _> Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing
to represent the interests of their citizens_

I wish I could share this view. Alas, things like corruption, regulatory
captivity, and revolving doors, are big problems on this side of the pond too.

~~~
bubblethink
>likely contribute a pretty penny to the publisher's bottom line

Is there any evidence for this ? Judging by the dates of the works, this looks
like it is just a shakedown and an attempt to set precedent.

~~~
toyg
Thomas Mann is a giant of European literature, a Nobel Prize read in
universities all across Europe. Chances are it's compulsory reading in German
high schools in some way. _The Buddenbrooks_ alone will probably sell a good
amount of copies each year.

Heinrich Mann was a very important figure during Weimar. Again, chances are it
pops up in compulsory reads.

I honestly don't know Döblin, but looking at how his most famous book is
described, he seems to be another key read about the Weimar years - again,
likely compulsory at school in Germany.

Schoolbooks make a lot of money.

------
madez
To put things into perspective, the plaintiffs lawyers, Waldorf Frommer, are
known for shady tactics. They have built an industry of putting immense
pressure on private people. They don't shy away from lawsuits because they are
cheap for them and menacing for the people. They don't always win, but under
the line it is a very profitable business for them; they employ about 60
lawyers.

The public broadcast made documentaries about their cease-and-desist-industry
against private people. Even the German Bundestag changed multiple times the
law to stop that madness, but it took many years because the christian party
opposed effective changes. Now, even though the law has changed on the 13th
October 2017, they continue to pressure people into paying.

Some courts are heavily in favour of them, most notably the Amtsgericht
München. This makes the situation even worse for people who cannot afford to
appeal a judgement even though they are convinced they are not guilty, because
the financial risk is too high. I would not be surprised if the judgement in
this case gets overthrown in a higher court.

The defendants german lawyers, WILDE BEUGER SOLMECKE, are known for legal
defense against Waldorf Frommer. Personally, I don't trust them completely
because they offer an all-inclusive legal defense package that is conveniently
priced at 2/3 of the value Waldorf Frommer asks for. This industry is a huge
employment scheme for lawyers.

~~~
xvilka
Publishing the name of the company will not really help to fight them. Every
company is a team of people behind, so listing names of those people can have
a better effect instead.

~~~
cyphunk
Could you expand on why you think the name of the company is not important
here?

~~~
xvilka
Companies are indifferent to the bad image, especially those not presented on
the stocks market. People are more sensitive.

------
MikeGale
If you want to take action, like boycott, these rent seekers. Here's a list of
associated publishers:

    
    
        S. Fischer Verlag
            O.W. Barth
            Wolfgang Krüger
            Argon Verlag (de)
            Scherz Verlag (de)
                Fretz & Wasmuth
        Rowohlt Verlag
        Kiepenheuer & Witsch
        Verlagsgruppe Droemer Knaur
        Die Zeit
        Macmillan
        Farrar, Straus and Giroux
            Faber & Faber
        Henry Holt and Company
            Holt Paperbacks
            Metropolitan Books
            Times Books
            Owl Books
        Palgrave Macmillan
        Picador
        Roaring Brook Press
            Neal Porter Books
            First Second Books
        St. Martin's Press
        Tom Doherty Associates
            Tor Books
            Forge Books
        Bedford, Freeman and Worth Publishing Group
            W.H. Freeman
            Bedford-St. Martin's
            Worth Publishers
        Hayden-McNeil
        Nature Publishing Group
            Scientific American
        Audio Renaissance
        Renaissance Media
        Macmillan Publishers
            Palgrave Macmillan
            Pan Macmillan
                Macmillan
                Pan Books
                Picador
                Macmillan Children's Books
                Campbell Books
                Priddy Books
                Boxtree
                Sidgwick & Jackson
            Nature Publishing Group
            Macmillan Education

~~~
orivej
This list is not entirely accurate: Faber & Faber is not associated with
Holtzbrinck.

~~~
germanier
The UK publisher is not but they sold the US company with that name (their
former subsidiary) to Holtzbrinck.

------
Findus23
I’m really for open access to old books, but for playing devils advocate I can
see the courts point: International websites have to respect local laws. After
all those are the only ones I can directly influence (by voting, etc.) If we’d
start to ignore this (even if it is in my advantage in this case), this means
I have no influence any more on how companies are allowed to interact with me
(which shouldn’t be the case in a democratic state)

It’s a hard decision as the internet is global and I don’t have a real
solution, but I don’t think taking US (or any other) law as „the valid law on
the Internet“ is helpful.

~~~
robjwells
> for playing devils advocate I can see the courts point: International
> websites have to respect local laws

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.

Project Gutenberg’s argument is that they are only a US concern — everyone
involved officially is in the US, and the site is hosted in the US.

This is distinct from, say, a company explicitly providing a service to
customers in a particular country (cf GDPR).

And, to counter your point with an extreme example, it would mean that no-one
is ever able to criticise the Thai monarch on any website in the world lest
they be jailed under Thailand’s lèse majesté laws.

It’s one thing to say that an in-country website respect that country’s laws,
it’s another entirely to say that any website hosted anywhere in the world
must respect that country’s laws.

~~~
jhasse
> 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.

~~~
harshreality
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.

~~~
jhasse
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.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Those points can't be picked apart like you did. They add up

Others are doing a fine job of taking apart the specifics, but it's important
to understand why this form of argument is itself a fallacy.

Inference works by taking into account new evidence and using it to adjust the
probability with which you believe something to be true. So if you see Bob
wearing a red shirt, you are more likely to believe that Bob owns a red shirt.
Could still be that he has borrowed it or something, but it's now more likely
he owns one than it was previously. By contrast, if you go all through Bob's
bedroom and find zero red shirts, that makes it less likely, even though it's
still possible he owns one that isn't in his bedroom.

The problem with allowing plaintiffs or prosecutors to play this game is that
they can take the list of everything you've ever done, ignore everything that
makes what they're trying to prove less likely and present only the list of
things that make it more likely. If you look only at that evidence then each
piece of it increases the probability that you believe what they want you to
believe, _regardless of whether it 's actually true_. How guilty they can make
you look is directly proportional to their level of resources in finding
things that make you look bad, independent of your actual guilt.

> I really didn't know. .de is very common in Germany.

Most countries have .co.uk, .org.uk, .net.uk, etc. The US doesn't have those.
US companies use .com, .org, .net, etc. regardless that they're nominally not
US-specific.

~~~
icebraining
The US does have .us - it was actually the first ccTLD - and a complex
hierarchy under it, it's just not commonly used for historical reasons.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
It's not commonly used because the hierarchy is weird. Originally the names
had to be four deep, containing both the state and the locality, which is
silly since all but the smallest operations span localities and even small
companies often change locality. So they eventually allowed registrations
directly at .us but there is still no .us equivalent to .org.uk.

------
cerebellum
The plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH.

S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH is part of Holtzbrinck Publishing Group since 1963
[0].

Macmillan Publishers Ltd is wholly owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing Group since
1999 [1]

Basically a sister company of Macmillan which may (or may not) be hit with the
negative publicity fallout in the more than 70 countries it operates in...

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fischer_Verlag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fischer_Verlag)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Publishers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Publishers)

------
zorked
The explanation is at least slightly dishonest (hopefully not intentionally)
in claiming that jurisdiction was established due to content being available
in German, which makes it sound like a whacko court claiming to own a
language. Reading the decision one learns that some of the volunteers involved
in running PG and posting these materials were residents of Germany.

~~~
KenoFischer
I thought so too reading the first couple of pages of the decision, but in the
judicial conclusion section, the jurisdictional issue is squarely resolved on
the "targets German users" issue, which the court bases on 1) Partial
translation of the website 2) The availability of German language works 3) The
"anyone anywhere" language on the website 4) A disclaimer that people should
check their local laws (implying in the opinion of the court that they knew
non-US persons were accessing their material and intentionally targeting their
offering to such people).

So yeah, while the language issue is only part of the judicial reasoning, is
is indeed mentioned three times in the judicial conclusions. The court does
not however appear to adopt plaintiff's theory on jurisdiction because some of
the volunteers were German.

As such, I'm inclined to think that while the focus on the language issue is
perhaps a bit overstated in their statement, it is definitely grounded in the
opinion of the court.

As an aside though, I'm not convinced the court spent too much time
considering the jurisdictional arguments here, which I think are probably the
most important part of this case. Most of the analysis is concerned with
whether the publisher plausibly alleged they own the copyright. I assume that
is because that is usually the primary point of contention in copyright cases.

~~~
smsm42
This legal theory is completely nuts. This means if I write something in, say,
Russian on my website, and it's accessible to people from Russia, I am now
considered to be obliged to follow every whim of Putin regarding my site's
contents, even if I don't ever step my foot in Russia and don't want anything
to do with it? Hopefully this is just plain old corruption and not idiotic
legal theory that language you use makes you subject to whatever laws any
state using the same language invents, even if you reside on the other side of
the planet and want nothing to do with that country.

~~~
CodeWriter23
And what about publishing in English? Does the UK take precedence and the US
has no standing? Or is a publisher subject to courts in both countries?

~~~
Mindwipe
UK courts have always held that US based publications/websites commit libel in
the UK if they have a readership in the UK, irrespective or the location of
the publisher.

The US doesn't enforce those judgements any more, but the UK still holds the
principle.

~~~
smsm42
UK libel laws are a known garbage fire. I think people in UK are starting to
wake up to that and try to fix it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013)

------
vortico
I am completely confused by how this court order even works.

I am assuming that PGLAF is owned and operated in the US. "PGLAF has no actual
presence or activity in Germany".

I suppose the Berne Convention allows US police to honor international court
orders for copyright violation, but what's to stop a country from making a
ridiculous law that extends the copyright length to 2100 years, creating court
orders for the 1 billion people who own a Bible or other old text without
paying license fees, and collecting all the money in the world?

~~~
Xylakant
> law that extends the copyright length to 2100 years, creating court orders
> for the 1 billion people who own a Bible or other old text without paying
> license fees, and collecting all the money in the world?

Generally speaking: Nothing. Practically speaking: Impossibility to enforce
unless you’re a major power. Look how american laws often get enforced world
wide while North Korean law doesn’t practically matter.

~~~
swimfar
This is a sincere question. What American laws are enforced outside the US?

~~~
jwildeboer
DMCA, computer fraud have been and are used to extradite non-US citizens to
put them in front of a US court for crimes under US law. Regardless of it
being a crime in the country where the suspect lives/did the hack.

~~~
fyfy18
I feel if the countries of the parties involved were reversed, it would be a
much different situation. Although the content could be hosted in Germany, and
aimed at a German audience, other parts of your infrastructure (e.g. domain
names, SSL certificates, CDNs) are most likely controlled by US companies, so
you do not have much choice in whether you follow US law.

------
akerro
That's quite ironic, Gutenberg was German
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg)

~~~
cheschire
And he was from Mainz, which is only a 30 minute drive from where this court
case was tried.

------
icebraining
_In the US, copyright protection is based on the number of years since
publication._

PG should be careful about misinforming people. This statement is only true
for books created before '78\. Since then, in the US, copyright protection is
also some years after the death of the author, except works for hire.

~~~
chippy
It literally says this:

 _" in the US, copyright protection for works published prior to 1978 is based
on the number of years since publication. "_

Did they edit the page since you posted your comment 18 hours ago?

~~~
icebraining
Yes, as I copy-pasted. The footer also says it was updated today.

------
weinzierl
> PGLAF complied with the Court's order on February 28, 2018 by blocking all
> access to www.gutenberg.org and sub-pages to all of Germany.

I can access www.gutenberg.org and sub-pages just fine from Germany. So the
block doesn't seem to be active at the moment.

> Q: Why didn't Project Gutenberg simply remove the items?

> A: The is no reason to remove them. The 18 eBooks are all in the public
> domain in the US, and have been for many years. Copyright status in another
> country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or
> anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.

But why then even block access from Germany? If the stance is that _"
Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability
of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of
these books."_, what is the rationale for the blocking.

There is also the German Projekt Gutenberg
([http://projekt.gutenberg.de/](http://projekt.gutenberg.de/)) which is
promoted by Spiegel Online (one of the most widely read German-language news
websites [1]) even under their own domain as
[http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/](http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/). I don't know
what kind of relationship the German Projekt Gutenberg has with PGLAF. The
German Projekt Gutenberg is accessible for me from Germany right now, but
apparently has blocked the controversial books. For example the page that
lists Heinrich Mann's works says about the book "Der Untertan": "Exists in
Projekt Gutenberg-DE, but is blocked until 31.12.2020" {"Im Projekt Gutenberg-
DE vorhanden (gesperrt bis 31.12.2020)"} [2].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_Online](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_Online)

[2] [http://projekt.gutenberg.de/autor/heinrich-
mann-1637](http://projekt.gutenberg.de/autor/heinrich-mann-1637)

~~~
ballenf
The link addresses just that:

> The decision to acceed to the German Court's order to make items
> inaccessible from Germany is intended to be a temporary appeasement, while
> the appeal occurs - this is because the German appeal Court will likely look
> disfavorably on PGLAF if it shows contempt for the German Court.

~~~
raverbashing
Well, no crap sherlock

I don't see why Project Gutenberg thinks it isn't subject to German law. And
yes, it sucks and it is against the spirit of the internet.

But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website.

~~~
freeflight
> But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website.

Sued by whom? Afaik gutenberg.org is registered in California, no German
jurisdiction, the cease&desist orders usually used to shut something like this
down don't apply here.

Same deal with ISPs: Afaik there's no legal framework to support anything like
that, it's for exactly that reason why law firms like Waldorf and Frommer uses
cease&desist letters to pretty much blackmail people into stopping the
"distribution", it's all based on civil action.

~~~
raverbashing
Rights owners in Germany would request the blocking to the Justice system, due
to theirs rights being violated

If someone hosts a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted
material, I assume something similar would happen if the site refused to take
the material down

~~~
pgeorgi
> a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume
> something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down

[https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-...](https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-
releases/2017/april/ustr-releases-2017-special-301-report) is what happens.
Being on the 301 report watch lists can have pretty nasty consequences in
trade relations with the US.

------
quickthrower2
I have a contrary opinion to most others here.

PG should take steps to honour the copyright laws of other countries.

My reasoning is this:

Say hypothetically I started "Project Open" in a country with zero copyright
protections.

Then by that country's laws, I can list Amazons entire kindle catalog, buy all
their books and scan them, and make it open access.

And by the PG argument, ignore the laws of other countries that demand
copyright protection for those books, until I get sued.

At which point I block the site for the countries based on IP address (as if
proxies and VPNs and people who travel don't exist)

If someone did that, they'd probably be characterised as a pirate site and
shut down by the FBI.

~~~
stordoff
Two counterpoints:

* The subset of things that are legal in all jurisdictions is probably rather small. Let's say hypothetically that a country bans the distribution of all works in English - should PG comply with that as well?

* Why should I have to care about laws beyond my jurisdiction when setting up a service? That seems like a tremendous burden.

> they'd probably be characterised as a pirate site and shut down by the FBI.

That's a likely outcome, but if Project Open is operating lawfully in its own
country, on what grounds should the FBI be able to claim jurisdiction?
Unilaterally applying laws over foreign persons in foreign territories feels
like an overstep.

~~~
Mindwipe
> Let's say hypothetically that a country bans the distribution of all works
> in English - should PG comply with that as well?

If there's an international treaty (or indeed several) backing it up?
Probably. Unlikely that there would be though.

------
freech
> mainly because the www.gutenberg.org site has some content in the German
> language.

That's an extraordinary theory of international law. By that logic Austria and
Namibia also have jurisdiction.

~~~
Xylakant
This is an extremely short (and misleading) summary of the courts argument.
Among the reasons for assuming jurisdiction is the assumption that project
Gutenberg targets users in Germany and part of that assumption is Project
Gutenberg’s statement that the goal is to make the works available globally
(thus including germany) (quote: “anyone anywhere”). The fact that content and
at least parts of the page is available in Germany adds to that assumption.
It’s been established that websites targeting german people (also) fall under
german jurisdiction.

So no, not an extraordinary or new theory of international law.

~~~
dsr_
It is, however, a terrible theory, since the immediate effect is that every
website is subject to every jurisdiction in the world.

~~~
Xylakant
No, that’s not the effect. If you make a website in the US hosted on US
servers that does not obviously target german customers then you don’t fall
under german jurisdiction. It’s not sufficient that your site is generally
accessible from germany.

However, if you do add things as “we ship to germany” to a shop then you fall
under german jurisdiction - which is fine in my books, because the customer
should have a simpler legal recourse than the company.

Having to conform to foreign laws is just the flip side of being able to reach
those people easily.

~~~
mcguire
Or, if you add German translations? What if you add a link to Google
translate, allowing German translations?

~~~
Xylakant
If you that in the intention of targeting german citizens (or all people of
the world), yes, that could lead to a court assuming jurisdiction.

------
trothamel
I am not a lawyer, but...

I hope and suspect that the US courts would refuse to enforce the judgement
against Project Gutenberg. A little bit of research shows that for a foreign
judgement to be enforced, a country would need to have personal jurisdiction
over the defendant.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, at least under the US law that would
apply if the judgement was being enforced.

Given all the overreach of European governments over the past few years
(VATMOSS, GDPR, and now this), I suspect the time is ripe for something like
the SPEECH act, a law clarifies that when a US citizen makes something
available on the US, that does does not subject them to the law of a non-US
country - and that allows the US citizen to claim court costs if someone tries
to register a judgement against them.

~~~
Mindwipe
> I suspect the time is ripe for something like the SPEECH act, a law
> clarifies that when a US citizen makes something available on the US, that
> does does not subject them to the law of a non-US country - and that allows
> the US citizen to claim court costs if someone tries to register a judgement
> against them.

The US would have to pull out of all international copyright treaties and the
WTO for this to happen, so it's not going to happen.

------
discordianfish
Btw, Waldorf Frommer is specialized in these questionable law suites. They
built an business around sueing people for torrenting things.

------
konschubert
It seemed that putting up a website these days means one either has to obey
all laws of all counties of the world at the same time.

Or one has to restrict access to those counties where one follows the law,
creating a fragmented web.

This is only going to get worse as the world keeps dialing back on
globalization.

------
driverdan
What would be the consequence of not complying? Would they just require German
ISPs to filter the site? Could they enforce a judgement on a US company?

------
jwtadvice
Seems punitive to me, rather than 'fair'. US copyright law has no jurisdiction
the same as German copyright law, other than by coincidence of
geography/volunteer base. I think Project Gutenberg is doing the best thing it
can for itself. I associate the project with doing the best thing it can for
people.

In general, we're going to run into increasing numbers of cases like this.

------
s3nnyy
> "Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the
> world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18
> books, there is every reason to think that this will keep happening"

Why do German courts think they can overstep jurisdictions?

~~~
thenaturalist
See, they think they don't.

From the court document:

> The action is admissible. In particular, the District Court of Frankfurt am
> Main has international and local jurisdiction pursuant to § 32 ZPO (German
> Rules of Civil Procedure). According to § 32 ZPO, the court of the district
> where an unlawful act was committed has jurisdiction for suits brought
> against such acts. Unlawful acts within the meaning of § 32 ZPO also include
> copyright infringements. Along with local jurisdiction, this provision also
> governs the international jurisdiction of German courts. An unlawful act
> within the meaning of § 32 ZPO is deemed to have been committed both at the
> place where the offense was committed and at the place where the offense had
> its effect, so jurisdiction optionally applies to the place where the
> infringement was committed or where the legally protected interest was
> affected. A conclusive claim of facts substantiating an unlawful act
> committed within the judicial district is enough to establish jurisdiction.
> § 32 ZPO also covers claims for injunctive relief. According to § 32 ZPO, if
> a copyright or related property right is allegedly infringed by making the
> protected property publicly accessible via a website, the place where the
> unlawful act was committed is Germany if the asserted rights are protected
> in Germany and if the website is (also) publicly accessible in Germany.
> However, intended availability of the web presence in Germany (among other
> countries) is not a requirement (...).

This - to me - is quite a funny piece of jurisdiction and probably one of the
reasons why international mediation processes do exist.

~~~
LocalH
Yet the plaintiff in this case rejected international mediation. They're hell
bent on keeping this case in German court.

------
psergeant
> So the court thinks that the presence of content in German means that courts
> in Germany have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that PGLAF is entirely
> in the US?

I suspect that if the Brits started claiming jurisdiction — well, _everywhere_
- on this basis, then that would raise eyebrows

~~~
Mindwipe
There are some limitations on it nowadays, but they do and used to a LOT more.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism)

------
cheschire
I hope frivolous lawsuits such as this further inspire non profits to take
their hosting to decentralized providers such as zeronet and ipfs. There’s
almost no need to host these projects centrally anymore, and it seems to only
invite attacks such as this one.

~~~
shaki-dora
It’s not frivolous, almost by definition, if you win a lawsuit. You can
disagree with this court’s judgement on all sorts of issues, but Germany isn’t
usually known to be a banana republic with corrupt and/or completely
incompetent judges.

------
userbinator
_The Plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH_

Are they related to Springer Verlag and/or that other German publishing group
whose main objective was to take collections of Wikipedia articles, verbatim,
and turn them into books?

~~~
imurray
"Verlag" is just the German word for publishing house.

------
zombieprocesses
Seems like every major part of the internet is under attack by the media, the
courts, governments and the elite. Every day, it's another major part of the
internet having to defend itself.

------
ipsum2
It's great irony that Johannes Gutenberg, the person who the project is named
after, was German.

------
krylon
I am in Germany, and I just opened Moby Dick on Project Gutenberg. I do have
native IPv6, though, someone already pointed out that the block only affects
IPv4.

------
cdjk
What would have happened if PGLAF had just ignored the lawsuit? Since they
have no presence in Germany what could the German courts have done to them?

------
Findus23
That’s odd. I always thought it was „life + 70 years“ in the whole EU.
(According to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths))

Here in Austria the law regarding copyright is pretty similar to Germany so
it’s really interesting why no one has sued before.

~~~
Mindwipe
Well, "always" since about 1996 depending on the country, but yes, it is.

I am curious about what Project Gutenberg would do if this judgement was
replicated in every country in the EU, which feels plausible.

------
xtrapolate
Blocking the whole country is an interesting move, mostly because it has the
potential to generate a much greater public outcry than simply masking away
the few specific books in question, putting a greater public pressure to
reevaluate the entire legal constructs surrounding these issues. It's a
display of standing for your principles without compromise.

------
ajmurmann
I'm not sure I follow why people are upset with the publishing company that's
sueing. They do own the copyright. One can disagree with the law and think it
should be changed (I strongly believe that) but that's up to lawmakers to do.
It would be irresponsible for the publisher to ignore that their ownership is
being ignored.

~~~
mcguire
According to the linked faq,

* They did not own all of the copyrights at the time the suit was filed. In fact, they may not own the rights now.

* International treaties like the Berne Convention have means to resolve these disputes. The plaintiffs have ignored those and filed suit in their own, likely incorrect, jurisdiction.

* The suit, and the decision, does not ask for the texts in question be blocked in German jurisdiction. It calls for them to be taken down entirely, even though they are legal in the US.

~~~
germanier
The judgement clearly states that the books in question should be blocked from
being accessed from Germany. The court is aware that such blocks can be
circumvented but that's still fine. They never claimed jurisdiction over what
happens to users outside of Germany and explicitly haven't ordered the site to
take down those books completely.

------
nshoo
This might be helpful. When I got randomly blocked for 24 hours (in the US),
recently, some of the mirrors still worked. You can find them here:
[https://www.gutenberg.org/MIRRORS.ALL](https://www.gutenberg.org/MIRRORS.ALL)

I’d be interested to see if they work in this case.

------
dirkt
Can someone explain to me why project Gutenberg has decided to block the
COMPLETE site for German IPs instead of just blocking the books in question?

Is this just a dick move to enrage people and get attention?

And they could have blocked just the pages with the books in question directly
after receiving the copyright violation notification...

~~~
cyphunk
this is discussed here in the comments extensively. The best answer is that
they block Germany because they expect if they complied by only blocking
certain books they would have to deal with many more requests in the future.
They also decided to take this chance to make a statement to encourage a
public debate.

------
shmerl
70 years for copyright (no matter from what point) is a ridiculous length to
begin with.

~~~
Freak_NL
It is even more painful when you realize that _all_ of the 18 books mentioned
were published in or before 1920.

 _Most of these books are over a century old._

I would expect that between the extremes of copyright abolishment and the
current system of 'life + 70 years', most people would agree that some amount
of protection is fair, but I seriously doubt that a majority feels that
anything over 30 years since publication is necessary, much less considered
fair. I wonder if that was ever researched in recent years.

Not that it matters; global copyright laws are permantently frozen because
amending them is a costly matter requiring global coordination, and there is
little political will to tackle this (or even consider it a problem). Any
attempt to lower the extend of copyright (in any jurisdiction) will be met by
a wall of well-paid lawyers and lobbyists pay-rolled by all the major content
owners.

------
stakhanov
I would second the motion that copyright laws are a f*ing joke. But given that
laws are the way they are, there isn't clearly a good guy and a bad guy in
this story. I really don't think it's wrong for German courts to intervene
when German laws are broken in the way that a U.S.-based party facilitates a
German-based party (who reads copyrighted material without paying for it)
infringing on the rights of another German-based party (who authored or
otherwise acquired rights in the material).

I think it's wrong for the U.S. to be a "safe haven" for people whose attitude
towards the rest of the world is "screw you and your laws." That's exactly
Google's legal strategy with privacy laws: They make sure everything they do
when they violate E.U. privacy laws somehow comes under U.S. jurisdiction,
which says something to the effect of "...well U.S.-based persons have a right
to privacy, but, as for the rest of the world, dear Google, you hereby have
permission to do whatever you want". (At least that's my non-expert
understanding of U.S. privacy laws. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm a huge fan of PGLAF and the work it's doing, but I'm sorry to say that, in
blocking all of Germany for everything, I do see a little bit of a reflection
of this "screw the rest of the world" notion. Of course I do recognize that
it's probably not borne out of pure bad attitude, but rather limited
resources. When they clear works to be published, their clearance process is
probably based only on U.S.-laws, and then they put it up globally. The
solution would have to be to clear the rights on a matrix where every work
needs to be looked at from the point of view of every jurisdiction, and
access-controlled accordingly. Obviously that's a resource-intensive task, and
I totally respect that PGLAF says they don't have the resources for that.

So really, what this is probably driving towards, is that every jurisdiction
needs its own Project Gutenberg, with access restricted to that jurisdiction,
and clearing rights according to its own laws. If a German legal expert
reading this is interested in taking on such a task, please do get in touch.
I'm up for the role of being the techie in this operation.

------
znpy
I wonder if it works the other way around, in general:

\- country A has different copyright laws than country B.

\- A copyright holder from country A asks an organization in country B to take
off some content based on country A's copyright laws.

\- The organization in country B decides not to take off the content, as it is
perfectly fine under country B copyright laws, and block whole country A
access.

So here are some questions:

\- Might this case set a precedent?

\- Some of those weird, small and autonomous one-island countries can come up
with some very relaxed copyright laws and start distribute content "legally" ?

~~~
darklajid
I wonder if, given their broad reply, that project shouldn't just block
everyone BUT the US, since they decided that US law is the only that applies
to them.

Now, I don't like these laws one bit, but I also really don't like this
(over)reaction. If your legal counsel argues that you should block a country
to avoid being sued for different laws, shouldn't the same counsel point out
that this is likely for most of the world?

Or is Germany the oddball here and the majority of the world doesn't have CP
laws, or doesn't care or .. have laws that are literally one to one compatible
with the US ones?

~~~
cyphar
Most countries are signatories to the WIPO treaty that enshrines a global
"standard" on copyright laws. However, each individual country's legislation
is different -- though generally most countries have similar or looser
copyright laws than America (since America was the source of the current
insane variant of copyright we are experiencing, rather than the previously-
sane British copyright system defined by the Statute of Anne).

However, Europe has some really strange copyright directives that go even
further than the US. For instance, architecture is copyrightable, and so
taking and distributing photos of the _outside_ of a building is not
technically allowed without permission from the owner. So taking tourist
photos within an EU country and posting them online could be seen as copyright
infringement.

Of course, this is just a general guideline, if you actually want to do
business you need to ask lawyers familiar with the laws of all the countries
you wish to do business with (though this is prohibitively expensive for
volunteer efforts, which explains why they didn't do it).

------
rhn_mk1
Unfortunately, the donation page
[https://www.gutenberg.org/donate](https://www.gutenberg.org/donate) is also
blocked in Germany :(

------
buserror
Donated too. I haven't have a fantastic use of the project until now, but I do
appreciate the effort, and the will to resist the bullies.

------
ufo
Does anyone know why the books involved in the lawsuit are in the public
domain in the US but not in Germany?

~~~
soneil
That's in the article. In the US, the copyright term (for the relevant period)
was the date they were published plus n years. In (most of) Europe, it's the
life of the author plus n years.

So for a book published 50 years before the author died, the term expires in
the US long before it does in (most of) Europe.

(This has since changed in the US, but did not apply retroactively. So
published+n still applies to works published before the change to life+n)

------
astrodev
> "It also seeks punitive damages and fines."

But there is no such thing as punitive damages under German law?

~~~
pgeorgi
The pglaf document isn't the most accurate in general (eg. claiming that
Germany has "life + 75" terms, while correctly calculating life + 70 right in
the next sentence; or discussing that the 56 years rule will end in the US in
2034, since books published after 1978 are subject to life + 70 as well - I
guess Gutenberg won't be able to publish a single new book between 2034 and
2048), so I guess the claims made were only about damages (even if pglaf might
consider them "punitive") and fines.

------
blt
Is this Verlag related to the academic publisher / rent seeker, Springer
Verlag?

~~~
pgeorgi
Verlag means "publisher", it's not part of a name.

(There are two publishers going by "Springer" though, you were referring to J.
Springer, not A. Springer)

------
gnud
IMSLP should follow suit, instead of taking any chances, until German courts
come to their senses about jurisdiction.

(For those who don't know, IMSLP hosts a lot of sheet music scans that are out
of copyright in canada, and not in the EU).

------
Myrmornis
> The is no reason to remove them. The 18 eBooks are all in the public domain
> in the US, and have been for many years. Copyright status in another country
> is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or
> anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.

Suppose a country X existed which doesn't honor US copyrights at all. By
symmetry, it seems that Project Gutenberg would approve of a website hosted
entirely in country X, offering full texts of all publications by US authors,
up to the present day, for download by anyone in the world, including in the
US.

I do realize that PG is under no obligation to have an opinion on any such
hypothetical circumstance. But nevertheless, that seems to be the implication.
Are they really so anarchic? Or do they just think US copyright laws are more
important than everyone else's?

~~~
mcguire
For many years, X was China. I have no information about whether PG approved
of that or not. PG follows the laws of the country in which it is based.

------
tunichtgut
These copyright laws are such a joke! Typical of nowadays germany. Nothing is
working anymore, except you run an army of lawyers and "cash-into" the local
government. Its such a joke, rly.

------
larkeith
The crux of the argument seems to be whether German copyright applies to US
websites served to German users; Project Gutenberg's view and the Court's view
are below.

Project Gutenberg:

 _Q: So the court thinks that the presence of content in German means that
courts in Germany have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that PGLAF is
entirely in the US? A: Yes, that was the original basis of the claim for
jurisdiction, which the Court accepted in their judgement. Since then, there
some more recent decisions in the European Court of Justice, and other German
courts, that support this theory based on a Web site being accessible from a
country. Those other cases involve companies that actually operate (for-
profit) in Europe, and cases between two European countries (i.e. part of the
EU). They are not consistent with prior laws and cases, even in Europe, and
also not consistent with provisions of the Berne Convention and other
international law. In addition, PGLAF has pointed out that Germany is widely
spoken in the US (the third-most common second language), and also is widely
taught in schools and colleges. PGLAF has no actual presence or activity in
Germany._

Court Decision:

 _Reasons for the decision The action is admissible and well founded. 1\. The
action is admissible. In particular, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main
has international and local jurisdiction pursuant to § 32 ZPO (German Rules of
Civil Procedure). According to § 32 ZPO, the court of the district where an
unlawful act was committed has jurisdiction for suits brought against such
acts. Unlawful acts within the meaning of § 32 ZPO also include copyright
infringements. Along with local jurisdiction, this provision also governs the
international jurisdiction of German courts. An unlawful act within the
meaning of § 32 ZPO is deemed to have been committed both at the place where
the offense was committed and at the place where the offense had its effect,
so jurisdiction optionally applies to the place where the infringement was
committed or where the legally protected interest was affected. A conclusive
claim of facts substantiating an unlawful act committed within the judicial
district is enough to establish jurisdiction. § 32 ZPO also covers claims for
injunctive relief.
Accordingto§32ZPO,ifacopyrightorrelatedpropertyrightisallegedlyinfringedby
making the protected property publicly accessible via a website, the place
where the unlawful act was committed
isGermanyiftheassertedrightsareprotectedinGermanyand if the website is (also)
publicly accessible in Germany. However, intended availability of the web
presence in Germany (among other countries) is not a requirement (Federal
Court of Justice, GRUR 2016, 1048, marginal number 18 - An Evening with
Marlene Dietrich; cf. Regional Court of Hamburg, Judgment dated 06 /19/2015 -
308 0 161/13, BeckRS 2015, 18942; Regional Court of Hamburg, Judgment dated
06/17/2016 - 308 0 161/13, BeckRS 2016, 12262). These requirements are met in
this case, as the works in dispute which are protected in Germany are
indisputably also available in Germany. Also, the plaintiff has convincingly
argued that the availability has led to downloads in Germany. Apart from that,
the first defendant’s website is also intended to target German users. This is
supported by the fact that the website is partially in German, that the site
offers German- language works, and that the first defendant explicitly strives
to make the works available globally (“anyone anywhere”). This is not
contradicted by the disclaimer in the first defendant’s website stating that
users must verify if they are entitled to download the works in their
respective countries. Rather, this disclaimer indicates that the defendants
are aware that their website is also visited by users from other countries
than the United States._

------
mirimir
So why don't they have a Tor onion link?

I mean, Facebook does, for dog's sake!

------
qwerty456127
This is adorable. I wish other sites like YouTube, GitHub, Wikipedia etc would
also refuse to remove something or block something in particular for
particular country.

~~~
lucb1e
(1) This is not adorable. (2) I feel this is similar to "first they came for
the socialists"[1] idea: your country could be next to be blocked access from
Github, Youtube or Wikipedia. It's a ridiculous idea that everyone should do
this.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..).

~~~
qwerty456127
I would absolutely prefer my country to try blocking access to Github, Youtube
or Wikipedia rather than Github/Youtube/Wikipedia to block particular content
for it on its demand. In fact I would bypass the block anyway so it doesn't
really matter practically but it matters a lot from the political point of
view.

The governments/institutions demanding web sites to prevent their citizens
from accessing particular content are modern day legal terrorists and tyrants
and nobody should ever agree to negotiate such things with them nor volunteer
to participate in oppressing their citizens.

------
gluejar
German users, please do not access or clone the following github repositories:
“Der Untertan,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-
Untertan_38126](https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Untertan_38126) “Die
Ehrgeizige,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-
Ehrgeizige_43335](https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Ehrgeizige_43335)
“Professor Unrat oder Das Ende eines Tyrannen,”
[https://github.com/GITenberg/Professor-Unrat-oder-Das-
Ende-e...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Professor-Unrat-oder-Das-Ende-eines-
Tyrannen_35264) “Der Vater,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-
Vater_33329](https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Vater_33329) “Flöten und
Dolche,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Fl-ten-und-Dolche--
Novellen_312...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Fl-ten-und-Dolche--
Novellen_31218) “Flaubert und die Herkunft des modernen Romans,”
[https://github.com/GITenberg/Flaubert-und-die-Herkunft-
des-m...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Flaubert-und-die-Herkunft-des-modernen-
Romans_33328) “Buddenbrooks,”
[https://github.com/GITenberg/BuddenbrooksVerfall-einer-
Famil...](https://github.com/GITenberg/BuddenbrooksVerfall-einer-
Familie_34811) “Der Tod in Venedig,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Tod-in-
Venedig_12108](https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Tod-in-Venedig_12108) “Der
kleine Herr Friedemann,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-kleine-Herr-
FriedemannNovel...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-kleine-Herr-
FriedemannNovellen_36766) “Tristan,”
[https://github.com/GITenberg/Tristan_13810](https://github.com/GITenberg/Tristan_13810)
“Gladius Dei,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere-
Stunde_120...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere-Stunde_12053)
“Schwere Stunde,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere-
Stunde_120...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere-Stunde_12053)
“Königliche Hoheit,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/K-nigliche-
HoheitRoman_35328](https://github.com/GITenberg/K-nigliche-HoheitRoman_35328)
“Tonio Kröger,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Tonio-Kr-
ger_23313](https://github.com/GITenberg/Tonio-Kr-ger_23313) “Die Ermordung
einer Butterblume und andere Erzählungen,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-
Ermordung-einer-Butterblume...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Ermordung-
einer-Butterblume-und-andere-Erz-hlungen_31660) “Die drei Sprünge des Wang-
lun,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-drei-Spr-nge-des-Wang-
lunCh...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-drei-Spr-nge-des-Wang-
lunChinesischer-Roman_43987) “Die Lobensteiner reisen nach Böhmen,”
[https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Lobensteiner-reisen-
nach-B-...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Lobensteiner-reisen-nach-B-
hmenZw-lf-Novellen-und-Geschichten_36779) “Wallenstein,”
[https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-I.--
of-2-_43931](https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-I.--of-2-_43931)
“Wallenstein,” [https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-II.--
of-2-_43932](https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-II.--of-2-_43932)

------
jaakl
> PGLAF is entirely in the US

PGLAF has awesome mission, but that base assumption is not really correct.
With publishing content in Germany (or whatever country) over Internet (or
otherwise) they have crossed physical and legal borders. You must obey local
laws everywhere and US laws are legal in their soil only. The attitude that US
laws are something globally applicable and Internet is something above local
laws is naive and total blockage “revenge” is just plain childish.

~~~
stale2002
> total blockage “revenge” is just plain childish.

It seems like it is working to get them publicity. If germany doesn't like
that they are now being blocked, then they should change their laws.

It is their website, so too bad for germany.

Protesting ridiculous copywrite laws is perfectly reasonable.

~~~
freeflight
> If germany doesn't like that they are now being blocked, then they should
> change their laws.

Sadly it ain't as easy as that, the copyright lobby is very powerful in
Germany, with their very own special interest laws like "mitstörerhaftung" [0]
and the "Impressumspflicht". It's stuff like that which prevents open WLAN
easily being run and operated because in Germany the person running the AP is
liable for everything that happens trough said connection.

There are a ton of law firms who solely generate their income by sending out
bulk cease&desist letters to torrent seeders, people who don't have a proper
"Impressum" on their webpage and a number of other "formal" reasons.
Kindergartens and retirement homes have gotten c&d letters over singing
Christmas songs amounting to "copyrighted content".

These letters pretty much boil down to "Pay this fine and sign that you won't
do it again if you still do it again you are liable for several thousands of €
in damages".

Most people just pay the "fine" (usually starting at around 500€ sometimes
quite a bit higher depending on the content) as it's easier and less hassle
compared to taking it to the court, which are quite often technological inept
and thus are very likely to side with the claimant's version of "This is
theft/piracy!". It's pretty much a very own sub-sector of law firms in
Germany.

Most people often think practices like these are something reserved to the US,
a while ago, but Germany has its fair share of copyright insanity going on
too. At this point, I'd guess Germany is even a far bit crazier than the US.

[0] [https://qz.com/694618/why-is-it-impossible-to-find-free-
wi-f...](https://qz.com/694618/why-is-it-impossible-to-find-free-wi-fi-in-
germany/)

[1] [https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an-
impressum/](https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an-impressum/)

~~~
lovich
Then Germany as an entity can deal with the results of their society being
structured in a way that allows those special interests to have that level of
control. America has the same problems as well but it's be unreasonable to
expect people in other sovereignties to make special accommodations for me
just because my government is making me follow a different set of rules

~~~
freeflight
> it's be unreasonable to expect people in other sovereignties to make special
> accommodations for me

Nobody is expecting PG to do anything like that, what is expected is that PG
just removes these 18 books from German access, if they don't then the German
publisher can cease&desist them over giving access to said books, which would
have no effect at all on GP due to it being an entity that's registered in
California, so German c&d letters have literally no effect on them.

GP is taking a stance here, which I very much appreciate as a German, but
quite a few people here seem to be misunderstanding what's actually happening
here or expected from GP.

~~~
mcguire
There is nothing in the decision about "German access".

" _The defendants are ordered, on penalty of an administrative fine of up to
EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to 6 months, for each
case of non- compliance, said imprisonment to be imposed on the second
defendant, to cease and desist from making the following works publicly
available or letting them be made publicly available, namely:..._ "

Plus damages.

~~~
freeflight
The fact that they are talking about Germany is self-evident because it's a
German court and they even wrote it out plainly, if you'd bothered to read
further than the part you quoted:

"via the website www.gutenberg.org (including its sub-pages) without the
plaintiff’s consent, if and to the extent to which it is possible for internet
users to access them (screen display and/or download) from Germany."

If you want to talk about national courts censoring content from the whole www
then you need to talk to US courts and their "chilling effects".

------
solarkraft
Interesting that it's still available to me. Uncomfortable situation over all,
but an understandable decision.

------
tehlike
I made a tiny donation just now.

------
lifeisstillgood
tl;dr Project gutenberg is a USA entity, and in the USA copyright ends x years
after publication. In Germany (and UK and many other EU countries) it's x
years after authors death. A Troll Law Firm sued under German copyright and
seems to have won the first round.

So this is Brexit for me. We in the UK think we are going to "take back
control", but the nature of globalisation just means more and more situations
like this. and there are only three ways it goes

\- race to the top best regulations are adopted globally. Everyone but the
best is a rule taker

\- race to the bottom just awful

\- confusoploy bad - where you go to gutenberg to get shakespeare's othello
and have to sign 19'waivers saying you are not in a dozen jurisdictions that
claim copyright still exists

Personally I think confusoploy is our likely destiny. sadly

------
DubiousPusher
Somewhat ironic.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg)

------
Zorlag
So what? Even my Dad knows how to use a VPN.

------
nearmuse
What are the precedents?

------
hmd_imputer
another Neuland in Germany

------
originalsimba
those pesky germans at it again..

------
Grue3
Now this is how you deal with government censorship. Take note, Github,
Youtube, Instagram, Twitter et. al.

------
panarky
_> The Court in Germany has promoted a theory that it has jurisdiction, mainly
because the www.gutenberg.org site has some content in the German language._

Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg was a German citizen, certainly
any site that takes his name submits to German laws!

------
Tomte
"The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such
proceedings would have taken place in the US"

Cute. Who cares about what US law may require?

~~~
thomastjeffery
Considering how much US patent law has been enforced abroad: most governments.

I do hope that these proceedings _are_ forced to take place in the US, because
that would set a precedent, however insignificant, that copyright _does not_
apply in other countries.

~~~
Tomte
I hope that countries other than America still get to have their own court
system. I certainly don't want America to have final say over everything in
the world.

~~~
gpshead
Neither do most US citizens.

