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.)
(Score: -1, Troll) by VLM on Monday March 05 2018, @01:36PM (5 children)
Not much longer, look at those demographics.
As the culture of Germany is replaced, it'll be interesting to see stuff like :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Society_for_Intellectual_Property [wikipedia.org]
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Syria [wikipedia.org]
implemented in Germany.
It looks like generally speaking in practice copyright is not enforced as much in Islamic countries although there is considerable lip service played to "we gonna be just like the west" to kiss up. If that assessment is accurate then soon in Germany the Gutenberg project will be free again. When German is a dead language, they can delete that stuff and upload more Arabic documents.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @01:54PM (4 children)
If German culture is being replaced I should have not noticed it. After all, I've been living here for close to 50 years now. But I'm not seeing any of that.
Or is it being replaced so stealthily that nobody realizes it? If nobody notices that a culture has been replaced, did the replacement actually happen? (hint: no)
Occams razor says you are a fearmongering, racist troll, spewing bullshit about a place you only know through US media. Which is worse than not knowing at all.
(Score: 4, Touché) by FatPhil on Monday March 05 2018, @03:41PM (1 child)
However, I didn't notice any trouble when I was at the christmas market in Cologne this year, so maybe things aren't as rapey as the media makes them out to be.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:23AM
which is what the AfD has been saying more bluntly for ages. And they are your 2nd largest party
The second largest party is the SPD (the largest CDU).
AFD got 12.7% of the vote.
On the other end of the AfD anti-immigrant rhetoric, the Greens got 8.9% and FDP (Liberal) 7%, a combined 16%. (The far left "Die Linke" got 9.7%)
I'm happy to say that AfD did far worse (12.7%) than Five Star in Italy last week (32%), which is evidence that generally people are fed up with the status quo. I suspect if AfD wasn't so anti-refugee they would have done better.
The rise of groups like AFD and other right-wing-populists is similar to the rise of Die Linke and other left wing populists. In the UK we see both the two large parties pushing to the fringes desparate to cling onto disgruntled people. People are fed up, but it's not with immigrants, it's with politics in general. In germany few are fed up -- 75% of the country rejected populism.
AfD remember was formed when the naysayers were saying how the euro collapse was imminent. Once that problem went away they reinvented themselves to blame the immigrants. Next election, who knows what they'll do.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:35PM
AC claims to be a citizen of every nation on earth. I don't believe a word he says. Parent was posted by some fatass American progressive, living in his mother's basement in San Fran Fucking Cisco. Some of you moderators are gullible!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 06 2018, @01:41PM
Look at the demographic stats of the children. Germany will be white-free in a century.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Monday March 05 2018, @01:46PM (20 children)
An american company doesn't have any rights over Germany. It has rights over America, and Project Gutenberg is making the books in question available to non-Germans. I fail to see the problem here. Should an American company not be beholden to local laws anymore? They have banned Germany, not German books. Law is law and you can't mumbo-jumbo your way into violating it unless you have a legal backing. Since America law is not followed in Germany (duh), Americans or Americans company don't have any legal backing in Germany.
So what were people expecting court to say? Respondent was throwing garbage from his house in the river that is illegal. Respondent should not throw garbage from his house?
Correct. So blocking Germany is the right solution until and unless Germans decide to change the law.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 05 2018, @02:02PM (9 children)
I'm just punting, but it may come as a surprise to someone raised with the Internet that local laws do indeed apply within a local jurisdiction, and that if a company is going to serve a population via the Internet that the jurisdiction's laws would apply.
That said, I don't fully understand what Germany can do to Project Gutenberg with such a ruling. Can they get at Project Gutenberg's sources? Send the ISPs a takedown order? Maybe there is some partnership "trade" agreement that would allow for mutual enforcements? (Which is why agreements like TPP are wrong - they compromise soverignty in the name of profit.)
What we're seeing is how the Internet may ultimately die, though, tied down in a morass of international law. The question is: was it always thus and just waiting for the proper scissors for the Sword of Damocles to fall, or is this something new. Or am I wrong, and this is just business as usual and the Internet is fine. Or perhaps I would like a nice cup of tea. Yes, that seems more likely.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 05 2018, @02:12PM (1 child)
it always thus and just waiting for the proper scissors for the Sword of Damocles to fall.
From day 1, local jurisdictions could have banned internet access for their citizens whether directly, or under the auspices of existing laws. Until now, most jurisdictions have seen the + side of the risk/reward balance, but in this particular case Germany has chosen to enact a partial block on themselves, to protect their citizens from free exposure to copyrighted works.
What I think will be interesting is if the international oversight bodies choose to allow this to proceed as it is, with the copyright in Germany works available freely to those jurisdictions in which the copyright doesn't hold. In which case, I expect all citizens of France to soon be enjoying bootleg copies of Hollywood movies before they are released in theaters.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:59PM
Well, these days France already gets many Hollywood movies before their release in the US.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Monday March 05 2018, @02:33PM (1 child)
And that is the ONLY reason Trump abandoned the TPP. It wast not profitable enough.
He recently stated that he would happily reconsider the TPP, if the US could get a "substantially better deal." Rights, sovereignty, and anything else be damned.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @07:24AM
No, Trump abandoned TPP because Trump is an idiot and didn't understand any of it. It's the same reason why he thinks trade wars are good and easy to win. The guy is a moron.
And now that TPP will go ahead without Trump, he's "I will be back in if you give me better terms". Same as Paris Accords. The guy is a total wanker.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday March 05 2018, @03:00PM
The only thing Germany can do is ban Project Gutenberg in Germany - which is what Project Gutenberg has preemptively done.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 05 2018, @09:08PM (3 children)
Why not click on the links in the PG page and read the ruling..... English: https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/gutenberg-lawsuit-judgement-EN.pdf [pglaf.org]
So you see, Tempest in a Teapot.
The german court only prohibited access from Germany which makes this whole story seem based on a lie, (ordered Project Gutenberg to cease distribution of the books> and 90% of the discussion here pointless.
.
The judge LIMITED his ruling to GERMANY!!!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @10:05PM (2 children)
Project Gutenberg IS NOT GERMAN and DOES NOT OPERATE IN GERMANY!!!
So the judge's order applies to NOBODY!!!
If the Germans want to stop Germans from going out and getting something, then they should police their own borders.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @07:27AM (1 child)
The website is accessible from Germany. Hence, it provides services to Germans. Hence, it must act according to local laws.
If they don't, then the person in charge could face criminal penalties which would mean asking US to extradite them to Germany to face such penalties.
You know, like US wants to take down other services around the world that break *their* laws in US which such services operate outside the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @01:01PM
You know what else is accessible from Germany? Russia. Sure, your packets have to go through a few countries to get there, but many Russian businesses would certainly provide their services to Germans. Should all Russian businesses operate by German laws, just because some Germans send requests occasionally?
What if the German physically goes to Russia, buys whatever, and takes it back to Germany. Should the Russian business be liable for that as well?
The internet doesn't provide businesses a point of presence in every computer in every country. What it does is provide any computer in any country a point of access to any business. The CUSTOMER, not the business, is the one making the international transaction.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday March 05 2018, @03:44PM (5 children)
Surely Germany blocking Project G makes more sense than Project G blocking Germany? Why should a US company be forced to reconfugure its servers just because of one petty country? (I raised the same question about France and Yahoo years ago, and many other cases - if countries want to have quirks in their laws then they should not expect alien entities to have to facilitate those quirks.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by xorsyst on Monday March 05 2018, @03:56PM (2 children)
It's very simple.
PG makes material illegally available in Germany
Germany tells PG so
If PG does nothing, then anyone from PG who visits Germany is liable to be arrested for breaking German law
If they don't visit Germany, then they are fine
(Score: 4, Informative) by choose another one on Monday March 05 2018, @04:57PM (1 child)
> If PG does nothing, then anyone from PG who visits Germany is liable to be arrested for breaking German law
This + the European Arrest Warrant means not just "visits Germany" but "visits anywhere EAW applies". EAW is much much easier (for prosecutors) than extradition and much harder to fight.
Otherwise this is really no different to the various perfectly legal (outside the US) internet gambling companies whose officers are subject to immediate arrest in the US. In both cases the local laws being applied are slightly screwy / discriminatory and the defendant is doing something perfectly legal in a different jurisdiction. International treaty processes are probably the right place to resolve this, but the US has lost there on the gambling issue (at least wrt. Antigua) without it appearing to change anything much.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:03AM
No different to Dimitry Skylarov visiting the US. As for the EAW, it's pretty much the same as 18 U.S. Code § 3182
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:33PM (1 child)
It has most assuredly not ordered Project Gutenberg to block Germany. That is a proactive measure Project G has taken because they don't want to fight a case for each case, and most probably because they don't have the resources to hire a team (it will take a team) to make the whole project legally in green everywhere they want their website to be accessed from. It is simply cheaper and for them to block Germany.
Sad turn of events but such is the outcome when laws are like that.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Monday March 05 2018, @05:09PM
In all fairness, they are appealing this verdict.
However, they are blocking Germany as a way to comply with the current ruling so as not to risk contempt of court during the appeals.
A side effect of this is that any other German publisher that now figures "woohoo! let's get some free cash from Project Gutenberg!" finds that PG is no longer distributing material in Germany. That might forestall some cases - even if the copyright law of another country is also violated, then the question remains why a German company wouldn't sue in Germany (where it is based) nor in the USA (where the defendant is based).
So it might help to delay or avert the tidal wave of litigation that could result from this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:42PM (3 children)
Well, you seem to be no friend of free speech rights. This is precisely why we need to invent and implement tools to make geolocation more difficult than it's worth. No government has the right to block people from seeing what they want to see. Your analogy is bogus. This is not garbage being thrown, it is "garbage" being sought out and brought home. The government has no right to meddle. And fuck anybody who says they do. I am so tired of these stupid arguments. Hopefully new tech will emerge to render the issue moot. And all the dictators and supporters can go cry in their soup. I hope project gutenberg offers up a VPN solution for Germany and other dictatorships that practice censorship. Let's make stupid laws impossible to enforce!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 05 2018, @05:43PM
There are enough VPN solutions (and others, like TOR) that Project Gutenberg doesn't need to provide their own. So why should they take the risk?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday March 05 2018, @06:22PM (1 child)
This is why all people who do STEM are not necessarily good at logic. The question was of jurisdiction, and you got hung-up upon garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:43PM
They have no jurisdiction over the internet. It is paramount that nobody ever achieves such a thing. We have an absolute right to communicate without interference. Since we don't have the guns to protect those rights, we must develop the bulletproof invincible tech that nobody can shut down.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday March 05 2018, @01:50PM (5 children)
The world has had US laws applying to them for years, both explicitly and through diplomatic pressure. Want to provide services in Germany, obey German law, it's not hard.
When a Russian firm in Russia does something with copyright that the US doesn't like, the US arrests the employees. The world has had enough.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 05 2018, @02:05PM (4 children)
Thinking about my above answer, what is different about the Internet is that while geoblocking is possible it generally has been upon the user to comply with making sure they're obeying their local laws. (If you, local user, will be violating your jurisdiction's laws by accessing the material, then don't access the material! Since it is legal for us to offer it in our jurisdiction, that is sufficient.) The site is offered to the Internet as a whole, not just offered specifically to Germany.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday March 05 2018, @03:49PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday March 05 2018, @07:10PM
Germany is either insane beyond imagination, or supports the rights of its citizens to do locally-legal things once abroad
Is it still illegal for a US citizen to go to Cuba? Is it still illegal for a US citizen to have sex with a 15 year old in France or Germany?
(Score: 4, Touché) by choose another one on Monday March 05 2018, @04:59PM (1 child)
> it generally has been upon the user to comply with making sure they're obeying their local laws.
Notably not the case with US-based users and online gambling sites.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 05 2018, @05:29PM
Very good point! I salute you with a Touche!
This sig for rent.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday March 05 2018, @02:05PM (4 children)
While this decision is undoubtedly correct, on a technical basis, it shows the problem that the Internet faces.
The Internet is fundamentally international. While one can sort of filter by country, such filtering is trivial to get around. Even China is playing whac-a-mole, trying to close all the ways around the Great Firewall of China.
However, if we recognize the international nature of the Internet, and yet want to respect local laws, then the only things left on the Internet will be whatever dregs and dribbles meet the laws of every country, even the most repressive. Which would be essentially nothing beyond stupid cat pics.
One possible solution would be to say: A company is responsible for meeting the laws of its home country. People consuming the content are responsible for meeting the laws where they are located. That's more-or-less how it is with banking and tax laws today, which is why places like the Channel Islands, or Ireland, or Switzerland are popular as corporate homes. Why shouldn't the same apply to copyright law, and pretty much everything else? If a country doesn't like what's coming in, they can always erect their own "Great Firewall", as the UK is trying to do.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @02:21PM (2 children)
I strongly doubt the decision is really correct. The only (non-temporary) copying of the book happens in the US, where that seems clearly legal. So I find it hard how - even if it was under German jurisdiction - a court could conclude that anything illegal happened.
What if you actually printed the book in the US and then sent it to Germany? Would you suddenly claim that once the book enters Germany somehow magically a copyright violation appears out of nothing? At most, customs can stop it, but the sender bears no responsibility.
So by that logic I could at best see German courts ordering the web page to be blocked by ISPs, but I really don't see the case against the people operating it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @03:53PM (1 child)
The court's decision is extremely sound. Your understanding of law is at fault here.
Yes, and there is nothing magical about it.
Of course the sender bears responsibility, only problem is that sender is not in the country. But in this case, Project Gutenberg is present in Germany and the proof is that they have sent a lawyer in the court. That is how courts work, by having lawyers represent an entity.
Of course, and that is routine all over the world.
Why would that happen? First the court will order something to stop the problem. Then if someone tries to circumvent the court order, then it becomes a criminal case. This can involves Project Gutenberg continuing to provide services against the court order, or someone in Germany trying to circumvent the court order.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @10:12PM
That only proves that they have the desire and ability to hire a German lawyer. It says nothing about whether they have business or assets in the country.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @02:36PM
Tell that to the IRS.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Monday March 05 2018, @02:22PM (4 children)
It seems to me like Project Gutenberg gave this German publisher exactly what they wanted - a void of any free publications.
At the end of the day, that is what every book/movie/software publisher wants - a void of any free or competing publications.
Every publisher would love to, justifiably or not, litigate the entire Internet out of existence leaving consumers with only a single restricted connection back to the publisher. And here Project Gutenberg has essentially ploinked the plug for them.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @03:12PM (1 child)
And as long as the consumers, also called "voters", agree - it is exactly what they deserve. It is not as if German system prevents anyone from voting Pirate Party.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday March 05 2018, @03:18PM
Well, it's what a simple voting majority or other deciding group of them deserve, but that group is only a minority of the victims. I don't think that larger group is all deserving of market manipulation by means of copyright manipulation.
Sure, everyone has the responsibility at some level to vote the bums out. But at the same time...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 05 2018, @04:50PM (1 child)
So, how many Germans will bel stopped, or even slowed down, by the geoblocking? Surely, Germans are at least as web-savvy as their American counterparts. VPN's and proxies are easy to come by. Not to mention, Europeans travel. The average German has how many kinfolk who live outside of Germany? Cousin Olga, in Switzerland, will be happy to download a dozen books, then make them available to Franz, in Berlin. Cousin Olga may even learn how to set up an FTP server, just for cousin Franz.
Geoblocking doesn't work, and I think that most people understand that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @12:31PM
But by this logic, Project Gutenberg should shut down as there probably is always some country that disagrees. Yes geoblocking does not work but that's really besides the point here.
And as mentioned, nothing would make the publisher happier.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday March 05 2018, @03:13PM (7 children)
To be clear, the word "decided" here is not used in the sense that "PG decided to block Germany." PG was minding its own business when Germany came after it. Rather, it's more "PG decided to block Germany's access to public domain works in its home country, because German courts have attacked them over it."
This is bad user experience designed by courts. That is absolutely the wrong way to do it.
If German law or German courts object to Germans getting e-books from North America because of differing copyright laws, I don't have a problem with that other than the standard objection to overlong copyright periods.
If German law or German courts object to North American companies or organizations that comply with the laws of the jurisdictions where they are located, who were leaving Germany alone, I have really no sympathy there.
There's an argument that PG was "making available" materials that are public domain in the US but copyrighted in Germany, but it's a specious* one: US law makes the materials available in the public domain; PG didn't do that. PG has the materials because they were already made legally available. That's what they do.
------------------
* specious is an awesome word that describes something that sounds good until you think about it, at which point it falls apart into nonsense....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:25PM (6 children)
With the US quickly headed for corporate-bought copyright terms of "heat death of the universe plus 95 years", it's only a matter of time before this situation with Germany is reversed, with works whose copyrights have expired in more civilised countries being made available and US companies crying foul.
I'm with PG on this: they're making the works available where the copyrights have expired at the site where they're publishing them. They've taken the time to spell out to those visiting from other jurisdictions that it's their (the visitors') responsibility to make sure that they (the visitors) don't violate local copyrights. I hope PG prevails. I further hope that if they do prevail, the US courts are consistent in their decision down the road when the shoe is on the other foot.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Monday March 05 2018, @05:25PM (5 children)
Frankly, I doubt it.
Copyright is about who is allowed to distribute a work. PG is clearly distributing a work. Now one country's copyright law would only affect that country. But PG has demonstrated (e.g. with this block) that it is possible for them to differentiate between countries. So at best, PG continuing to distribute works in places where that copyright has not expired is an oversight on the part of PG.
Basically: they can choose not to distribute works to certain places, so what's their excuse for distributing works to those places?
Moreover, the Berne convention seems to require that all other signatories "recognise the copyrights held by citizens" (from Wikipedia).
In this case, if the works fall under German copyright, then all other signatories would be required to recognise that. That is, *if* a work falls under German copyright, then its copyright in the USA is "life+70", not the normal US term.
At least, that's how I read this stuff. But IANAL, so don't use this post for legal advice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @06:50PM
Not operating in those places is their reason. No one needs "excuses" here.
Chinese government does its censorship inside China and does not presume to apply their laws inside USA; German government is to be doing likewise.
(Score: 3, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Monday March 05 2018, @08:14PM (2 children)
I thought the copyright term in the US was, in fact, life of the author + 70 years. In fact, that's what it states.
So I don't understand why some works have a longer term in Germany.
Section 302 [cornell.edu], and Section 303 [cornell.edu].
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:43AM
Works that had already entered the public domain stayed there, even when US copyright was extended back past their creation date.
There was also a period where US copyright required registering with the Library of Congress, foreign copyrights from then might not be recognised if they were never registered.
It is also possible to explicitly declare public domain something of which you own the copyright, but I don't think that's what is happening here.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:57PM
For works published in 1923 through 1977 and works made for hire, the U.S. copyright statute assigns a nominal "life" of 25 years after first publication or 50 years after creation, whichever comes first. If an author lived for less than 25 years after publication, the copyright would expire in Germany before it expires in the United States. If an author lived for more than 25 years after publication, the copyright would expire in the United States before it expires in Germany.
In addition, while the copyright term extension of the 1990s restored copyright in works whose copyright had expired in Germany, it did not do so in the United States. All works published prior to 1923, other than sound recordings, entered the public domain in the United States on or before January 1, 1998, and stayed there.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 05 2018, @08:48PM
They've done no such thing.
It's at best a half hearted attempt at compliance, which they know can be beat with any approximation of a VPN. At best they've said they (PG) won't be knowingly involved, but they didn't take any measures to be "knowing".
Also, life+70 IS the normal US term, but it doesn't apply to older books. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf [copyright.gov] as properly cited in the PG page.
You said:
You cited Wikipedia, which no responsible legal citation would ever do, and no direct link so that we could check you weren't using it out of context.
PG on the other hand pays actual copyright lawyers who found:
Oddly enough, if you go the the PG page about this whole issue: https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/index.html [pglaf.org] and start clicking on their links to some of these books, a fair number of them are NOW not found. So it seems that the situation may be more fluid than it seems.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 05 2018, @03:17PM (1 child)
What's the fastest way to turn public opinion against your business? Maybe lawyer up and win damages that hurt a beloved non-profit organization, over an issue that most agree should have gone the other way?
To complete their journey to the dark side, the publisher needs to do as the RIAA did and sue as many of their customers as possible, concentrating on the most helpless and innocent such as children and sweet old ladies who do not use computers.
The popular meme is still that Mickey Mousing is going all soft and childish, censoring out everything that might upset a 5-year-old's mother, but in reality, that mouse has a mean bite, and he's protected like he's the most endangered species on the planet. Who else has a law devoted primarily to their protection? The rest of the animal kingdom has to make do with the Endangered Species Act.
Yet despite protection that is invulnerable to bullets, far stronger than tough guys like Rambo, Mickey is weak. To turn to the lawyers at all on a matter like this, to have them use bad laws to win victories, isn't strong, it's weak. It is only public support, public sympathy for and liking of art and artists, and the feelings that artists do deserve compensation, that allows copyright to work at all. Lose that, and copyright is dead. And they've gone a long ways towards turning the public against them.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. They should change houses. And still not throw stones even if the new house can take it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday March 05 2018, @05:52PM
To call the Gutenberg Project "beloved" is to overstate things. Most people have never heard of it. They've pissed me off, and made me decide that I will try to avoid buying anything published by MacMillan, but how many people care?
In addition, I already thought the copyright law was obscenely expansive, so they haven't even changed my attitude about the law. And most people, even most people directly affected, just don't care.
The most we can hope for is that the higher court will vacate this stupid decision. That and that a few more people will start finding ways to avoid country specific blockages. And that trust in centralized power will weaken. But most of those things are improbable.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @03:31PM (6 children)
Life plus seventy years?
And they want us to believe that these laws exist for the artists... I challenge anyone who claims so to show me a single artist who has been paid a single cent after they tied.
... and allow the person who delivered the money to describe the journey to and from the other side.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday March 05 2018, @03:57PM (5 children)
I think the original 14 may be to short for many if not most things that copyright protects, but the 28 years was plenty. If you can't come up with another masterpiece that will bring in the pfennigs in the space of three fricken decades, perhaps you, and maybe that prior so-called masterpiece too, weren't so great after all.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday March 05 2018, @04:52PM (1 child)
But even that is usually a lie. The artist sells off the rights to their work to a corporation that sits on the profits for effectively ever. When the life+70 comes up, they will just lobby to extend it.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday March 05 2018, @08:20PM
What if the corporation was the original developer? How long does a corporation last?
I seem to remember that Disney was one of the prime proponents the Life +70 and further extensions for works for hire.
Apparently its as long as 120 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths [wikipedia.org]
It no longer a simple determination under US copyright: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf [copyright.gov]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @05:14PM (1 child)
28 for non-commercial distribution, immediate non-commercial termination if not published (even just a quantity of 1) for 5 years.
This retains financial incentive for the author of the work, provides avenues for people who can't legally procure a copy to recieve it if the work is commercially unavailable and provides enough commercial leeway for someone whose writing or concepts is so far ahead of the time that only in the trailing end of their life is their work commercially successful to still benefit financially from the work. There have actually been authors whose early work wasn't appreciated until the latter half of their lives and allowed them to recover from/reduce their poverty level as a result of the earlier works (also examples of copyright having expired and them dying destitute, hence my 56 year limit, which would put them in their mid 70s before copyright would expire.)
HOWEVER. This should not apply to works for hire, which should be capped at 14 years, period. Additionally, copyrights should not be transferable, except under the limited circumstance of work for hires being transferred as part of a division of a corporation that is sold.
As an added requirement, for copyrights on hardware designs, software, and digital 'traditional media' it should be required that the original source code, not simply the published works be put into escrow to provide the innovations contained therein for the good of future generations, much like both patent and copyright were originally intended, and which have been seriously diluted as a result of the mix of science and creativity in both copyright and patent protections, both of which have been abused such that the material being provided to the public is not complete after the covenant's time limited rights are expired. If copyright was only 14-28 years there would be far more scrutiny going on about the lack of material being returned to the public commons as a result of patents or technology copyrights if the physical/technology designs of the works were still available when copyright expired.
As a final aside: private key escrow is needed for many technological devices today as a result of permanent code signing burned into many devices, without original images available and archived to replace them with.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 05 2018, @08:09PM
I don't think you have any concept of what "code signing" actually means.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:07AM
I can see an argument where an author is writing a continuing series that he/she should retain copyright on the earlier books. Some series might well continue past 28 years, (Asimov's Foundation maybe?). They do have a vested interest in not having unauthorised works in their 'universe'.
I think life plus 7 years, or 14+14 years whichever is the longer would be fair. However, I also think it should be combined with what I think Europe calls the right to be recognized as the author. The Author gets Life+7 or 14+14. As soon as the copyright is sold/transferred then it instantly reverts to 14 years, (with an option to pay a yearly fee for up to another 14. The reason for the yearly fee is to prevent orphan works. If someone pays the fee, you know who to pay for use, if no-one pays, you have to wait at most one year to use it.)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Whoever on Monday March 05 2018, @04:43PM (5 children)
Look at the cases of Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon. Everything they did was on UK soil.
There is also David Carruthers: CEO of an offshore gambling website.
Or the NatWest Three.
There are lots of cases of the US applying US laws outside the USA.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday March 05 2018, @04:53PM (4 children)
US is also wrong. It's quite common, actually.
They don't "cancel out," it just means they're both wrong.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday March 05 2018, @07:49PM (3 children)
However now the rest of the world is getting fed up with the US and is pushing back.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday March 05 2018, @07:52PM (2 children)
So, sort of the German equivalent of "Those yanks are wankers, so now we shall be wankers ourselves in order to push back"?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday March 05 2018, @08:04PM (1 child)
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
17 U.S. Code § 302 - Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978
Same as in Germany
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday March 05 2018, @05:07PM (2 children)
"Draconian" usually refers to an overzealous and restrictive use of law, so it sounds like you're supporting the German's court decision, rather than Project Gutenberg's.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 05 2018, @07:53PM (1 child)
There may have been some confusion as to what the word "That" referred to, however even a modicum of reading comprehension usually sorts that out.
The second definition of the word Draconian is on point to cover Project Gutenberg's actions, and translates to Cruel or Severe.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/draconian [dictionary.com]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/draconian [merriam-webster.com]
Like many things in english, context is everything, and you don't get to retroactively dictate the meaning of someone else's use of a word, or insist that long-surpassed original meanings are the only ones acceptable. Its like the whole tedious "begs the question" pontification that ensues after someone uses the modern interpretation of that phrase. Unnecessary and unhelpful.
English changes, and WHEN a word is said is as important as WHAT it originally meant.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Monday March 05 2018, @09:03PM
I'm retroactively dictating anything. I'm just saying that this usage - being, as you pointed out, that of the [i]second[/i] definition - could lead to an incorrect understanding of what was meant.
I don't think it's at all unhelpful to point out that people could easily read this as meaning pretty much the exact opposite of what was meant. "A modicum of reading comprehension" should not be required when a plainer, less ambiguous alternative is available.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday March 05 2018, @07:19PM
Germany should have just seized the domain name and put out an international warrant for arrest of the people running the site. After all the US has set the precedent that German born people living in New Zealand operating a company out of Hong Kong are subject to US district courts.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 05 2018, @07:29PM
Not sure there's any point in copy-paste entire diatribes of the submitter in the summary.
It would have been fine to cut it off at the Editor's note.
Let FakeBeldin come here and discuss it like the rest of us.
Stories should be a starting point for a discussion, rather than a manifesto aimed at ending the discussion before it started.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday March 05 2018, @08:26PM (1 child)
RLY
The owner told me she was reseaching fulfillment houses that would process the orders. She told me she only cared about US customers
"But the Internet is international" I advised her
And it really is
National governments are unprepared to deal with something that doesn't recognize boundaries
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 05 2018, @08:53PM
Unless your cosmetics are digital goods, (which can be shipped over the internet) I don't see a problem here, nor any relevance to the case at hand.
You accept or reject based on shipping address.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 05 2018, @11:00PM (1 child)
Maybe you want to look at the PGLAF website, right? Be careful what you type. I typed OGLAF, something very dirty came up.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:20AM
The damn Google suggests it while you type pglaf, and in the results page it insists you are looking for that dirty oglaf.
You need to do something with Silicone Valley, Mr President.