51–60 of 529 posts
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.
That's quite ironic, Gutenberg was German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg
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 . 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 thi…
Based on how media companies sue German torrent sharers (it's a cash cow for the law firms, like the one that is involved here, Waldorf Frommer), they sue individuals for making copyrighted content available on the internet -- because when you're torrenting something other people can get the completed parts from your computer, so if you run a mirror which is accessible from Germany, you will probably get a letter fro…
Access from Germany isn't the issue, having a German IP is the issue. They don't go after foreign seeders because that would be too much hassle getting the real data behind the IP (just like German law doesn't apply to them), but they hunt down seeders with German IP's with quite a vengeance.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Works fine for me for all books I tested. Can you name some specific ones which are blocked for you?
The top ten of the top 100 list are all blocked, as well as many random books in several random languages.
> 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…
Wooah careful there buddy, using the word "revenge" is not legal in my jurisdiction, and you just published it here by placing it on the internet!
> 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.
So no, not an extraordinary or new theory of international law.
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.
It might be slightly dishonest, but it's at least pointing the user in the direction of the actual culprit. Imho this is a valid approach because it creates awareness for a problem that the vast majority of people are never really aware of.
> 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…
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.
> 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).
And continues:
> Q: Is there anything that can be done about the situation?
> A: Project Gutenberg is fighting for an appeal. Ideas about how to appeal the case in German, and any possible legal actions in the US, are welcome. You can reach Dr. Newby by email, gbnewby AT pglaf.org.
It says they have no idea how to appeal the case in Germany and the paragraph above basically says they have no real intention anyway because they want to bring the case either to an US Court or to the WIPO.
I am highly sympathetic with the PGLAF but their argumentation is completely incongruent. Either they accept the jurisdiction of the German court, then they should appeal in Germany and the appeasement makes sense, or they don't, then they should just ignore it completely.