gutenberg.org blocks access to all German IP-addresses

[sadowski]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Jurisprudence around Internet downloads doesn't work based on where it's being made available from. If it did, then eReader and Fictionwise wouldn't have had to stop selling ebooks outside the US back in 2009, because their servers were in the US where it was legal for them to sell those ebooks.

That's different, isn't it? In these cases the publishers did not allow them to sell outside the US and could have (and probably had) threatened them to withdraw their books completely from their shops if they did not comply. No courts involved, just good old wild-type geo-blocking ;-)

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

Speaking as a retired DBA, If their database is reasonably structured, It would be a small problem to add PD expiration dates in an array of 10 year increments from 20 to 100 to the records of catalogued books. Then when someone tries to download a book, their location is identified and the proper ability to DL is either granted or denied based on a simple country look up table.

No it''s not that easy. You have to look at each book individually and every country individually to determine if it's in copyright or not. There is NO consistent set of rules. That would be insanely expensive to do for anyone, let alone a non-profit with a small budget. It takes hours to do one book for the US that falls in the 1923-1963 window. Every country has it's own set of gotchas.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Perhaps, but it's not legal everywhere they're making it available to. As we just saw.

Jurisprudence around Internet downloads doesn't work based on where it's being made available from. If it did, then eReader and Fictionwise wouldn't have had to stop selling ebooks outside the US back in 2009, because their servers were in the US where it was legal for them to sell those ebooks. But they did. For purchased products, the point of sale is considered to be the computer on which the purchase is made. By the same token, if a product is downloaded for free, the location where the download is considered to have happened is the location of the computer that made the download, not the server where it was downloaded from.

That's the way the Internet has worked for at least 9 years now. That's the way the courts are going to see it. You can say it shouldn't work that way until you're blue in the face, but good luck making that stick in the real world.

You keep ignoring that that was because of CONTRACTS with the publishers and had nothing to do with what the international copyright treaties would require. The PUBLISHERS required the store fronts to make that change. The PUBLISHERS that had CONTRACTS with the store fronts.

[Robotech_Master]

Whether the cause is contracts or copyright law, both cases deal with whether a particular entity was allowed to offer a given ebook in a particular location. In both cases, the location where the ebook was offered has been deemed to be the location of the computer that downloaded it--not the location of the server that hosted it.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Whether the cause is contracts or copyright law, both cases deal with whether a particular entity was allowed to offer a given ebook in a particular location. In both cases, the location where the ebook was offered has been deemed to be the location of the computer that downloaded it--not the location of the server that hosted it.

No. If PG has no contract with the publishers there's no requirement for them to do anything.

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by gweeks

No. If PG has no contract with the publishers there's no requirement for them to do anything.

Not according to the court that has jurisdiction in that area where they were doing it.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Not according to the court that has jurisdiction in that area where they were doing it.

Not according to a court in a jurisdiction where they have no physical presence. If North Korea finds in a court that you are guilty of not paying your tribute(taxes) are you going to pay up? Substitute any other state you like for North Korea.

Does Amazon collect sales tax for digital goods in states where it doesn't collect sales tax for physical goods?

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by gweeks

Does Amazon collect sales tax for digital goods in states where it doesn't collect sales tax for physical goods?

No; all those states are within the same country, and tax law at a state level may work differently than international law.

But I do know that when Amazon sells ebooks in Europe, it is required to collect the VAT rate of the country in which the buyer of the book is located, not of Luxembourg where its servers are.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

No; all those states are within the same country, and tax law at a state level may work differently than international law.

But I do know that when Amazon sells ebooks in Europe, it is required to collect the VAT rate of the country in which the buyer of the book is located, not of Luxembourg where its servers are.

Because amazon has a presence in the country. The country in this case is the EU which has unified taxing regulations.

PG has no presence in ANY EU country.

[Robotech_Master]

In 2012, the US filed criminal charges against Kim Dotcom of MegaUpload, despite MegaUpload having no physical presence in the USA.

In 2015, Elsevier filed suit in New York against Khazakstani research paper piracy site Sci-Hub, despite Sci-Hub having no presence in the USA.

Various California businesses have been filing suit against foreign violators of their IP in US courts.

I'm sure there are plenty of other cases where legal action was filed in the USA against foreign copyright violators such as piracy sites. Whether the verdicts in those cases can be enforced may be an open question, but as the Wikipedia article I linked a couple of pages back shows, there are mechanisms for foreign judgments to be enforced against American entities via American courts.

So it's not as if filing suit against foreign entities for violating local copyright is exactly anything new in US courts. Why should it be so surprising in German ones?

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

No; all those states are within the same country, and tax law at a state level may work differently than international law.

You keep mentioning international law as if there is some law that applies to everyone worldwide. There is not.

As another poster has pointed out for it to have any relevance to a country that country has to first be a signatory to the international document (whether it be a treaty, convention, etc.) and then to implement that into their own legislation to make it effective for their own country. Even then they may have special cases which are included in the international document but from which they absolve themselves by means of negotiating an appendix (this is very common), for example, or just ignoring in their own legislation that gives effect to the international document.

Furthermore, with respect to one country's courts acting upon the findings of another, as I have posted already:

"As far as I am aware the USA is not a signatory to any convention or treaty requiring recognition or enforcement of any other country's courts' judgements except in some cases of international arbitration (which is not the case in the PG matter)."

I am not in the USA so I invited and would welcome any clarification of that by pointing at any relevant USA legislation implementing any such convention or treaty but so far no one has come up with anything.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

In 2012, the US filed criminal charges against Kim Dotcom of MegaUpload, despite MegaUpload having no physical presence in the USA...

...I'm sure there are plenty of other cases where legal action was filed in the USA against foreign copyright violators such as piracy sites. Whether the verdicts in those cases can be enforced may be an open question, but as the Wikipedia article I linked a couple of pages back shows, there are mechanisms for foreign judgments to be enforced against American entities via American courts...

I can speak specifically with respect to the Kim Dotcom case. It is not as you say. It is so that an entity in any country can charge in their own courts someone in a second country but if the charged person is rightfully in the second country (so not subject to deportation) the law of the first country is largely irrelevant for good reason (another has given an action from North Korea as an example).

Kim Dotcom is a resident of New Zealand and court proceedings continue with him here regarding the USA actions. But that is nothing to do with enacting any verdicts of USA courts as you infer or taking any action against him for things he is accused of in another country; in fact at this time, as far as I am aware Dotcom only stands accused, not convicted of anything.

The now very lengthy court proceedings in New Zealand are in fact only associated with the extradition of Dotcom to face the charges against him in the USA. They are nothing to do with acting upon conviction or charges by a USA court. As far as New Zealand is concerned the USA has made a request for extradition, New Zealand (USA) claims that the request satisfies the requirements of New Zealand's Extradition Act and if successful in New Zealand's courts with that claim and a surrender order is issued then he will be extradited.

You will note, I hope, that in all that there is nothing relevant to acting upon any conviction or charges in the USA by New Zealand courts. It is all about extraditing an accused person to face charges in the country where those charges are laid. There is no assumption that the extradition will be successful. So your example is irrelevant, there is no copyright action against him here nor any assumption of innocence or guilt, all that is relevant is that he has been charged in another country which has asked New Zealand to surrender him. If the extradition request fails then as far as New Zealand is concerned that will likely be the end of the matter and not much the USA can do about it.

As an aside, should the USA courts decide to convict Dotcom in his absence, if that were to be possible, then he will as far as New Zealand is concerned be regarded as not having been convicted.

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I am not in the USA so I invited and would welcome any clarification of that by pointing at any relevant USA legislation implementing any such convention or treaty but so far no one has come up with anything.

According to Wikipedia, 47 out of the 50 US states have adopted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

According to Wikipedia, 47 out of the 50 US states have adopted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.

You don't get it. I specifically asked:

"As far as I am aware the USA is not a signatory to any convention or treaty requiring recognition or enforcement of any other country's courts' judgements except in some cases of international arbitration (which is not the case in the PG matter)."

I am not in the USA so I invited and would welcome any clarification of that by pointing at any relevant USA legislation implementing any such convention or treaty...


Where is the convention or treaty that has been signed? States or Federal can choose to act on foreign judgements or not, they are not bound by international agreement (unless, someone can turn up the signed convention/treaty/? and enacting legislation, which you have not done.)

[Section8]

Isn't it a little ironic that Project Gutenberg is now unavailable in its namesake's country of oirigin?