Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenFS
It would be one thing if S. Fischer were simply seeking a geoblock to prevent German users from accessing these books. Instead they are demanding the complete removal of these books from Project Gutenberg.
Quoting from S. Fischer's press release: "Alle Versuche des S. Fischer Verlags, Gutenberg.org ohne Befassung eines Gerichts dazu zu bewegen, diese Texte aus dem Angebot zu nehmen, scheiterten."
All attempts by S. Fischer Publishing to convince Gutenberg.org to remove these texts from their offerings without involving a court, failed. [translation mine] |
According to
the text of the decision,
Project Gutenberg protested they'd have to remove them but
Fischer said geoblocking would be sufficient.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by English translation, pg. 18
Contrary to the defendants’ opinion, the plaintiff’s request under I. is also not without merit on the basis of being too broadly defined. In this regard, the defendants claim that the plaintiff’s request does not indicate how the defendants are supposed to prevent the infringements. [The defendants claim] this is only effectively possible by deleting the works.
According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, it is not a requirement for a plaintiff’s request like this one to explicitly indicate which specific duties of action and inspection should be demanded of the respondent. Rather, it is sufficient if the duties of care and inspection to be complied with follow from the statement of claim and the reasons for the decision (Federal Court of Justice, GRUR 2016, 268, marginal number 14 - Access Provider; cf. also EuGH EuZW 2016, 821 - McFadden). These requirements are met in this case, since it can be gathered from the statement of claim that the plaintiff demands that the defendants use geoblocking to block users in Germany from accessing the works in dispute, at least.
Regarding the defendants’ objection that geoblocking is not an effective measure, this is also irrelevant according to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice. It is sufficient in this regard that the unlawful access is made more difficult (Federal Court of Justice, GRUR 2016, 268 -Access Provider).
|