Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday March 05 2018, @01:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the heavy-irony dept.

Project Gutenberg is a well-known repository for e-books that are out of copyright.

Recently, a German subsidiary of an international publisher started a copyright case against the project concerning 18 books, for which it claimed copyright. Read Project Gutenberg's summary of the whole mess here. The trick here is that the books in question were officially out of copyright in the USA, but still within copyright in Germany. In Germany, copyrights are "life + 70 years", meaning the copyrights to these books will expire in 2020, 2025 and 2027.

There's some interesting details (claims of copyright transfers during the trial), see Gutenberg's statement.

The long and short of it: the judge rules in favour of the plaintiffs, and ordered Project Gutenberg to cease distribution of the books. The project will file an appeal, but while that is pending, they chose to comply with the ruling (even though they feel that the project should fall wholly under US law or WIPO arbitration). To comply with the order, and likely to prevent further claims, the project decided to block Germany entirely.

[Ed note: I find it troublesome that a court in Germany can make a decision concerning an American company. I am not unaware of the irony in that statement compared to the US courts being asked to require Microsoft to turn over e-mails stored on a server in Ireland. Here is a selection from the Project Gutenberg link; following that is FakeBeldin's take on the situation.]

Q: Why block all of Germany, rather than just those 18 books?
A: PGLAF's legal advisors disagree with all claims that there must be any blocking, or removal, or anything associated - censorship, fines/fees, disclaimers, etc. - for items that are in the public domain in the US. Period.

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. There are thousands of eBooks in the Project Gutenberg collection that could be subject to similar over-reaching and illigitimate actions.

PGLAF is a small volunteer organization, with no income (it doesn't sell anything) other than donations. There is every reason to fear that this huge corporation, with the backing of the German Court, will continue to take legal action. In fact, at least one other similar complaint arrived in 2017 about different books in the Project Gutenberg collection, from another company in Germany.

Project Gutenberg's focus is to make as much of the world's literature available as possible, to as many people as possible. But it is, and always has been, entirely US-based, and entirely operating within the copyright laws of the US. Blocking Germany, in an effort to forestall further legal actions, seems the best way to protect the organization and retain focus on its mission.

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.

Q: Why did this all take place in the German Court system, rather than the US - where Plaintiff does business as Macmillan, and PGLAF is based?
A: The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings should 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.

International treaties explicitly and unambiguously support PGLAF's legal guidance as described above: that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries. Plaintiff managed to find a German Court, and some precedents from Germany (and, after the lawsuit was filed, from the EU), which were willing to flaunt international treaties by developing a theory that PGLAF is under jurisdiction of the German Court system.

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. Ultimately, PGLAF seeks to establish that any complaints about copyright must be brought either to the US Courts (where PGLAF operates) or WIPO processes (as guided by international treaties).

<opinion>
While that may seem draconian, I fully support this move. One case concerning 18 books highlighted that there are different interpretations of copyright law between Germany and the US. Now that this is known, it is an open invitation to further litigation - while Project Gutenberg may not be infringing US copyright laws, they may be infringing German copyright laws, for which they could be slapped with fines.

The (very) chilling side effect of this is that I can easily envision this concept sliding down the slippery slope.
Germany is a western-alike country, signatory to most trade agreements, conventions (such as the Berne convention governing copyright), and part of the EU. If Project Gutenberg falls afoul of German copyright law, then it most likely falls afoul of most copyright laws in the EU. And those are (by the Berne Convention) more or less aligned with other countries... so if that fails, then it probably fails in many more countries than just the EU.

If the final judicial conclusion is that Project Gutenberg was in the wrong and therefore liable for damages, I would recommend them to block everywhere but the USA. Even though I would hate losing access to Gutenberg (living outside the USA), for this non-profit initiative to expose themselves around the world to court cases is a tremendously bad idea.
</opinion>

(For added irony: the project is named after Johannes Gutenberg, the German who more or less invented the printing press.)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday March 05 2018, @07:52PM (2 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @07:52PM (#648121) Journal

    However now the rest of the world is getting fed up with the US and is pushing back.

    So, sort of the German equivalent of "Those yanks are wankers, so now we shall be wankers ourselves in order to push back"?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday March 05 2018, @08:04PM (1 child)

    by frojack (1554) on Monday March 05 2018, @08:04PM (#648130) Journal

    Well the judge was simply following the law he was handed. The blame falls with the German law makers who dictated an absurd copyright duration. (Which is about the same length the US has for film AFIC.)

    Perhaps judges who hand out world wide sentences should be forced to sign an agreement to extradition, certifying they themselves are willing to be tried in any jurisdiction upon which they attempt to impose their grandiose ruling.

    Extradition of a few of these judges would put a stop to this nonsense in short order.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:53AM

      by isostatic (365) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:53AM (#648444) Journal

      17 U.S. Code § 302 - Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978

      (a)In General.—
      Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.

      Same as in Germany