Slashdot Mirror
Project Gutenberg Blocks German Users After Outrageous Court Ruling (teleread.org)
Slashdot reader David Rothman writes: The oldest public domain publisher in the world, Project Gutenberg, has blocked German users after an outrageous legal ruling saying this American nonprofit must obey German copyright law... Imagine the technical issues for fragile, cash-strapped public domain organizations -- worrying not only about updated databases covering all the world's countries, but also applying the results to distribution.
TeleRead carries two views on the German case involving a Holtzbrinck subsidiary...
Significantly, older books provide just a tiny fraction of the revenue of megaconglomerates like Holtzbrinck but are essential to students of literature and indeed to students in general. What's more, as illustrated by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in the U.S., copyright law in most countries tends to reflect the wishes and power of lobbyists more than it does the commonweal. Ideally the travails of Project Gutenberg will encourage tech companies, students, teachers, librarians and others to step up their efforts against oppressive copyright laws. While writers and publishers deserve fair compensation, let's focus more on the needs of living creators and less on the estates of authors dead for many decades. The three authors involved in the German case are Heinrich Mann (died in 1950), Thomas Mann (1955) and Alfred Döblin (1957).
One solution in the U.S. and elsewhere for modern creators would be national library endowments... Meanwhile, it would be very fitting for Google and other deep-pocketed corporations with an interest in a global Internet and more balanced copyright to help Gutenberg finance its battle. Law schools, other academics, educators and librarians should also offer assistance.
Significantly, older books provide just a tiny fraction of the revenue of megaconglomerates like Holtzbrinck but are essential to students of literature and indeed to students in general. What's more, as illustrated by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in the U.S., copyright law in most countries tends to reflect the wishes and power of lobbyists more than it does the commonweal. Ideally the travails of Project Gutenberg will encourage tech companies, students, teachers, librarians and others to step up their efforts against oppressive copyright laws. While writers and publishers deserve fair compensation, let's focus more on the needs of living creators and less on the estates of authors dead for many decades. The three authors involved in the German case are Heinrich Mann (died in 1950), Thomas Mann (1955) and Alfred Döblin (1957).
One solution in the U.S. and elsewhere for modern creators would be national library endowments... Meanwhile, it would be very fitting for Google and other deep-pocketed corporations with an interest in a global Internet and more balanced copyright to help Gutenberg finance its battle. Law schools, other academics, educators and librarians should also offer assistance.
America is the driving force behind copyright extensions and indeed copyright itself all over the world. This is just one of very few situations where works are locked away longer in a foreign country than in the USA.
Also note that the payment database creates an authoritative record of what is protected and what isn't.
This 150 years automatically for free is ridiculous. Copyright works turn into culture after a while. We can't have our entire culture being owned. Consider that photos and recordings of WWII will be under copyright until after most of us are dead.
I don't know what to think because the article doesn't even describe what enforcement options are open to Germany in this case. Of course Germany can claim whatever jurisdiction they want. They could claim copyright protection on Jupiter's moons for all I care. The only thing that matters is what enforcement options the US government provides Germany based on our trade agreements and other arrangements.
The article seems to say that there isn't anything Germany can do other than pressure the US government to do something, so if that is true I could hardly care less about this ruling. China and Russia and Europe (and wherever) can make whatever crazy rules they want as long as the US government doesn't allow US companies and citizens to be restricted by them while operating outside of those countries.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
The authors of the books were also under contract to publish the books in the United States, and elsewhere, and in those jurisdictions the books have since entered the public domain. In the United States, from which Project Gutenberg operates, the books in question entered the public domain prior to the equivalent in Germany. If the authors had only published in Germany, the German court would clearly have jurisdiction. As they entered multiple agreements contractually, it's not so clear as the plaintiff claims.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Gutenberg was german, he invented the printed press process with movable type, which effectively took literacy as a skill away from nobles and the church and started a revolution of book access to the masses. He died largely unknown and with merrits unrecognized.
Why should Project Gutenberg have to block German users? If Germany wants to go to the expense of building a Great Firewall, let it do so.
No they haven't. That case has just reached the U.S. Supreme Court, with previous lower courts ruling against the U.S. government trying to apply U.S. law overseas. In fact, that was the whole point of putting POWs from the Afghanistan war in a prison in Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. base there is actually in Cuba, on lease since the Spanish-American War. The Bush administration knew if they brought these POWs into the U.S., they'd automatically get U.S. Constitutional rights - numerous Supreme Court rulings have stated that everyone in U.S. soil enjoys Constitutional protection, even illegal aliens, but that that protection ends at the border. So Bush hoped to prevent that by keeping them outside U.S. soil. - because U.S. law does not apply outside U.S. territory. (The U.S. Supreme Court eventually decided since the U.S. had total control over what happened in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, it was the same thing as U.S. soil even if the U.S. didn't actually own it.)
It's France which is spearheading the effort to apply national laws to the rest of the world. Their case is under consideration by the top EU court, so a decision in favor of France would make the EU complicit as well.
Not true.
It *did* have to be stated, but that is no longer the case. Inclusion of notice per regulations precludes certain infringement defenses (e.g. innocent infringement), but no notice is required by U.S. law.