Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2ion | Hacker News Reader

Fabulous :S The second time in 6 months German courts violated the public interest and ruled in favour of vested corporate intrests with an affect on me:

* In late 2017, a useless commercial weather forecast outlet (aggregating its data itself from national institutations!) sued the German National Weather service into having to take down its free weather app from the Apple and Goole app stores (development and operations funded with tax payer money!) and charge a fee for it. Somehow the judges got convinced that the Service unduly competed with a third-rate commercial information service.

* In early 2018, the courts lock out the public from a vast aggregate of literature in the public domain.

I'm sure I'll have a fresh item to continue the list soon.

View on HN

Why does the EU still have the same gross and absurd copyright terms and laws the US does? It fights US companies like Google on privacy and information security grounds, but seems to follow lockstep with the US on completely irrational copyright policy like "75 years after the author dies, only then can anyone else reproduce this work".

The US has it because its government is coopted by big media like Disney, MPAA, and RIAA and the average American is too ignorant / doesn't care at all about the death and stifling of culture that 100+ year copyright terms bring about. Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing to represent the interests of their citizens, so why is it just as bad over there?

Because, unlike some frankly sometimes a bit ignorant view of especially Americans, Germany isn't the paradise of individual/customers rights paradise it's often portraied as. It fights companies like Google not because privacy and security concerns but protectionism and the public accepts that due to some reasonble concerns about privacy spiked with deeply entrenched anti-americanism. (For context: I'm German)

I'm also German and strongly disagree with your opinion. Privacy is a very delicate topic in Germany since the Nazis and the Stasi used to arrest people for even talking bad about them.

If it’s so delicate, why do Germans permit a law that requires people to register their religion? When I had applied for a German residency permit, I was asked to disclose a religion, ostensibly to determine taxes.

I feel like Germans fall back on the “delicate topic” nonsense as a permanent justification for just about everything, but in reality, they tolerate plenty of big government violations of privacy and individual liberty while becoming hysterical about Google or Facebook. It’s illogical, Facebook isn’t going to lead to Nazism or the Stasi again — but the actual government could, yet Germans tolerate their government tracking people by religion or a government conducting mass surveillance but they lose their minds over an American social media company?

Russians and East Europeans aren’t constantly claiming “sensitivity” because of the past abuses of the KGB or NKVD despite those organizations killing vastly more people than the Nazis.

It’s hypocrisy. You can’t claim to be sensitive about a Nazi past while still tolerating the government to register people by their religion. Facebook privacy issues aren’t going to lead to Nazism; any implication of same is just nonsense.

> I was asked to disclose a religion, ostensibly to determine taxes.

The Church's "member fee" is being collected as a tax by the state because of some Weimar Republic law that has been kept around. Bishops are also payed by the state. This was to stop the then powerful churches from revolting against the government because the government wanted to clean up older laws and conflicts. [1] Don't ask me why it's still this way, I know a lot of people that want to get rid of that, including myself. You can get out of paying church tax very easily at the city hall, btw. You can then also state that your religion is following the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Imho, you are blowing this out of proportion.

> It’s illogical, Facebook isn’t going to lead to Nazism or the Stasi again

Right, but governments that request access to this data can. It's better to not collect data in the first place.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany

While this is true for the people, the officials seem to have other goals and opinions about privacy. E.g. using video surveillance at the Südkreuz in Berlin.

Also from Germany ;)

There are advocacy groups fighting privacy everywhere, including germany. And yes, they make progress, even here. But we still have stronger privacy culture and laws (that local companies follow, regardless what the guy a few posts above says) , giving such groups a much harder time here (and some degree the EU) to push their agenda. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case regarding IP laws/interest.

International IP law is standardized through the World Intellectual Property Organization. National laws like the DMCA in the US are local implementations of the international agreements.

Conforming to these rules is necessary to join any international club.

Without agreeing to terrible copyright laws, as a country, you basically don’t exist.

Take a look at the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Or...

seems to follow lockstep with the US on completely irrational copyright policy like "75 years after the author dies, only then can anyone else reproduce this work".

No, the US followed the EU on that one. The Berne Convention first set that policy¹ in 1886, and amongst the original signatories were multiple European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Others followed soon after, like Luxembourg (1888), Denmark (1903), Austria and Greece (1920), Hungary (1922), Ireland (1927), Finland (1928), etc.

The US was a holdout; they kept the policy based only on date of publication, which led to a much shorter duration, and only joined Berne a century after its creation.

Which is why the books in question in this lawsuit are in the public domain in the US but not in Germany.

¹ Berne only said life + 50, but it was already life + 80 in Germany before the US ever joined. The EU then harmonized at life + 70 in Directive 93/98/EEC.

But those facts don’t fit with the anti-American trope commonly repeated on Hacker News. Why do many Europeans on here seem to resent or blame the US for everything? There doesn’t seem to be nearly the same animosity from Asians or Australians. I am genuinely curious because clearly you stated the facts around the origins of copyright law but clearly others wanted to claim that this whole system was caused by Americans — despite being factually wrong. Do Europeans have an inferiority complex or something when it comes to Americans? It’s strange to me because Germans really seemed to love the US during the Berlin Wall era.. Levi’s, American music, Coca Cola, American military assistance to counter the Soviets.. but as soon as that wall came down, the next German generation seems to be filled with a low-grade hatred or resentment of all things American. But Europeans, rather than attempting to compete with American companies like Facebook, Apple or Google, instead seem to want to use the government to weaken those companies — rather than supporting tax and entrepreneurial policy that would allow places like France to create successful companies. There are more tech billionaires and millionaires in a single city in the United States than in the entirety of Europe. And that money? It gets used to fund more companies — creating a cycle of innovation and entrepreneurship.

But somehow, all of Europe’s problems are because of America?

Well, while I'm European, I can't say I speak for Europeans; I have no special knowledge. Take this with a big grain of salt.

You know the Elder Race trope in sci-fi? I think we Europeans think of ourselves a bit like that. Having suffered so much in both world wars, and having since mostly stopped fighting, we see ourselves as mature. Between the 50s-80s, we also mostly embraced a style of social-democracy with strong safety nets, which made us think of ourselves as compassionate. And our ancient heritage - cities, traditions, etc - make us feel wise.

Americans are seen a bit like the ancient Greeks and Romans saw the Barbarians. We might like some of you (hell, some barbarians were made into Roman emperors!), but you are still seen as violent and dangerous; be that due to your foreign policy (Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq) or your way of life (love of guns, poor social safety net, anti-science beliefs, etc).

But the real problem is that you are powerful, and you use that power. The previous poster might be incorrect regarding that particular policy, but their misconception comes from the fact that the US has been forcing IP treaties (e.g. ACTA) on other countries. And it's not just those treaties, it's your products and even your culture. You mentioned Coca-Cola. You know how that used to be called in my country, especially during the more left-wing days of the late 70s? The "dirty water of imperialism". The fear of being Americanized exists - and it's not unreasonable.

But you should also know that the US is not seen as the source of all evils, that's probably just what reaches you. There's plenty of internal strife. In my country, during the crisis, the enemies were Merkel and Schaeuble, for example.

1) the EU moving away from US economic and foreign policy is a relatively recent development. On most issues, from Crimea to copyright, you can usually start from the assumption that European and American positions are somewhat aligned. The exceptions (privacy etc) are well-known exactly because they are exceptions.

2) EU countries have a significant skin in the creative-sector game, in a way they really don't in other segments. In tech the US are more or less dominant, most "Big Bad Corps" are American, hence it's easier to attack. As soon as big European interests are in the picture, things naturally become harder. In this case, the incriminated books are by top German authors and likely contribute a pretty penny to the publisher's bottom line.

3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change.

> Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing to represent the interests of their citizens

I wish I could share this view. Alas, things like corruption, regulatory captivity, and revolving doors, are big problems on this side of the pond too.

>3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change.

This is an important point that is often forgotten. People complain that the EU is too complicated, but it became that way be necessity. You couldn't have built a European federation with the same scope and less complexity.

>likely contribute a pretty penny to the publisher's bottom line

Is there any evidence for this ? Judging by the dates of the works, this looks like it is just a shakedown and an attempt to set precedent.

Thomas Mann is a giant of European literature, a Nobel Prize read in universities all across Europe. Chances are it's compulsory reading in German high schools in some way. The Buddenbrooks alone will probably sell a good amount of copies each year.

Heinrich Mann was a very important figure during Weimar. Again, chances are it pops up in compulsory reads.

I honestly don't know Döblin, but looking at how his most famous book is described, he seems to be another key read about the Weimar years - again, likely compulsory at school in Germany.

Schoolbooks make a lot of money.

The EU broadly follows the French legal tradition that copyright isn't a "monopoly granted for the useful arts" as we hear so much on here from Americans. Copyright is considered to be a property right, period. And hence inheritable.

The Hacker News contention that the US exports it's copyright policy flat out isn't true really. The EU has always had very similar beliefs on the value of strong, long term copyright.

> The US has it because its government is coopted by big media like Disney, MPAA, and RIAA and the average American is too ignorant / doesn't care at all about the death and stifling of culture that 100+ year copyright terms bring about.

Germany has many powerful media/publishing companies as well, and most people don't care. It's really a very similar situation.

Perhaps the European interests fighting copyright regulation are stronger than the ones that fought privacy regulation. See: diesel

Not sure why you would mention diesel. At the moment, European governments are queuing up to announce draconian bans on diesel coming into force in just a few years. That's certainly not pleasing most entrenched players in the energy and manufacturing sectors.

If you wanted to highlight established interests successfully fighting their corner in EU proceedings, you could have picked something like tax harmonisation or OGMs - fields where extensive lobbying seems to have ultimately won the day.

Could we for once and for all stop entertaining the ridiculous notion that GMOs are somehow harmful or a thing that should be avoided? Every single argument I've heard against GMOs, so far, has been a form of wilfully ignorant neo-luddism.

While yes, the contracts that companies selling GMOs utilise are socially unfair, it's not like we consider databases to be a horrific thing because Oracle licensing terms are bullshit.

> the ridiculous notion that GMOs are somehow harmful

I did not express any judgement on this topic, I just pointed out that the current state of play at EU level on the subject is the result of extensive lobbying from the relevant industry.

Ah I see. Still, your statement that extensive lobbying has won is pretty much a blanket statement for any contentious legislation. Both sides will extensively lobby and whichever side wins will be able to attribute it to lobbying.

In GMOs case, it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost in the EU. GMOs are subject to dumb shit like mandatory labelling which only reinforces people's ill-founded fears and will inevitably poison debate going forward. After all, "why would they force labelling if it were harmless?"

> Both sides will extensively lobby

Absolutely, but often one side will not have industrial interests in play. I'm not intimate with the OGM situation, but the mainstream perception was that this is one of those cases where there is a difference in budgets, let's say.

> it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost

They had lost, and comprehensively, when the blanket ban was introduced. But they've since won by reversing it. If the situation actually were to be crystallized now, it would be a victory for pro-OGM interests and their lobbyists.

> Why does the EU still have the same gross and absurd copyright terms and laws the US does?

Uh... you do realize the EU had them first?

> In early 2018, the courts lock out the public from a vast aggregate of literature in the public domain.

The court decided that 18 titles should not be available. Locking you out completely was project Gutenberg’s decision.

I don’t support either court decision, but let’s still keep the facts straight.

For two reasons - other publishers were poking around about doing the same thing (minimize risk of it happening again with other titles), and to keep on the good side of the court (to ease appeals).

Can't say I blame them for either reason.

Also, it was a great rebuke to S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH.

At the cost of harming all german users. The Fischer Verlag honestly couldn’t care less - they probably like the outcome. Now even books that they wouldn’t have a legal recourse against are no longer available and must be bought. What an unexpected bonus!

Yes, that is true, and unfortunate. However, under US copyright law, Project Gutenberg does have the right to host those books. And it's never prudent to compromise regarding illegal demands.

I’d question it’s illegal. They have the right to host the books in the US, granted. But do they have the right to distribute them in germany? That’s where the court says no. And given the legal situation in germany, I think the courts decision could be correct.

It’s also a bad decision in practical and strategic terms: either they appeal the decision, then they accepted jurisdiction and the legality of the injunction or they don’t - and what options do they have then? Keep up the block indefinitely or cave in at some point, showing that against a determined adversary, they’ll eventually back down? Imho, it’s good only for internet cookie points.

They could arguably have ignored the decision. If a German court rules that something should not be available in Germany, they should order German ISPs to block it. That's what the UK does about "illegal" torrenting and streaming. And that's what China does about the Dali Lama, Falun Gong, Uighur resistance, and so on.

Edit: OK, so some argue that Project Gutenberg, which does business from the US, and which has no physical presence in Germany, should have done what the German court ordered. But consider the implications. Firms hosting content from a particular country would be subject to court orders from every country. That would not end well.

> But consider the implications. Firms hosting content from a particular country would be subject to court orders from every country. That would not end well.

They already are if they target users in a given country. Lack of international enforcement just means that they might escape enforcement. See also GDPR, the US case against Mega, a company run by a NZ resident and incorporated in Hongkong IIRC. See also how Twitter blocks certain tweets in certain countries lest they’re blocked completely. Same holds true for Facebook. Google censors certain autocomplete and searches in some countries. They also adhere to the EU “right to be forgotten” regulations - despite being an US company.

Sure, many companies comply "in certain countries lest they’re blocked completely". But Alexandra Elbakyan has ignored judgments in US courts against her. Under Russian law, I believe that her site is legal under fair use. She has managed to piss off the Putin administration, but that's a separate issue (as I understand it, her communist purity vs his vanity). And Google basically left China over censorship demands.

In the Mega case, the US basically leveraged their Five Eyes relationship with New Zealand to have Kim Dotcom's estate semi-illegally raided in January 2012. I say semi-illegally because it was done under agreements that are normally used against terrorists. I doubt that China could get away with rendition from US soil. No more than the US could get away with rendition of Snowden from Russian soil.

So basically, which countries get to enforce their law in other countries depends on relationships and dependencies, relative military power, and support from powerful allies. Under those standards, Germany might have a chance of prevailing against Project Gutenberg in the US. Except that the US doesn't like to be pushed around.

Ignoring an unfavorable ruling because it can't be enforced is not equal to not being subject to the laws. Alexandra Elbakyan might have major trouble traveling to the US.

An ISP block would also only block the entire site. This was not the intention of the court otherwise they would have done that instead.

The court only wanted some books blocked, not the entire site, because under german copyright those books are not yet public domain.

I'm sure that ISPs could block particular URLs.

Only for HTTP requests, any HTTPS or non-HTTP request is not as easy to block.

Most site blocks are on the DNS level as they aren't particularly complicated.

The court did not order the books blocked, it ordered them taken down and for PG to pay damages.

These 18 titles were the canary in the coal mine showing that under current German law, it is infeasible to operate a Project Gutenberg-like service accessible in Germany.

The lock-out is just the natural result of that.

It is absolutely possible to operate a Project Gutenberg-like service accessible in Germany. It would just have to serve books in the German public domain, just like the original PG serves books in the US public domain. Project Gutenberg Australia (http://gutenberg.net.au/), for example, has books that are in the Australian public domain but are still under copyright in the US.

It happens that in this case the books are in US public domain but not the German, but that's more of an exception than a rule: current US and EU copyright terms are the same (life of author + 70 years). Australia on the other hand has life of author + 60 years.

Regardless of what the court supports, this outcome is the direct effect of the court's ruling although it is not proportional to the scope of the ruling. Admittedly, I phrased it in a catchy manner.

However, it's reasonably proportional to the implications of the ruling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com