Project Gutenberg blocks access from Germany - <AUTHOR> https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/index.html <comment> CO-VAX I just donated $100 to PGLAF because they are fighting the good fight. Their donation page [0] includes "Think of this as a contribution to your grandchildren." However in this instance I think of it as a contribution against publishers (ab)using the justice system much like so-called patent trolls.

> Q: The plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH. Is that the international > conglomerate?

> A: Yes, it is part of a family of companies all under single ownership and > control or majority stakeholdership, from Germany, reaching around the > world. S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH is a unit of Verlagsgruppe Georg Holtzbrinck > GmbH. Internationally it is known in the US and elsewhere as Holtzbrinck > Publishers LLC. Readers in the US know this as Macmillan, which is one of > the largest publishers in the US by revenue, and owns many familiar > imprints. US readers might also recall that Macmillan was one of four > companies accused by the US Dept. of Justice in 2012 of price fixing. The > companies eventually settled the antitrust claims, including by giving > credits to customers who had overpaid for eBooks.

[0] [https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_N...](https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_Needs_Your_Donation)

<comment><USER3> I hope you don't mind that I take this opportunity to tell about he GFF, because it is very much related. If you are European and care about freedom rights, there is now an equivalent to the EFF/ACLU, called the "Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte" (short GFF), which translates to "Society For Freedom Rights".

They are mostly lawyers fighting strategic court battles in one of the cheapest country to do so, which in Europe happens to be Germany. This is a cost-effective way to further the cause of human and freedom rights.

If you are upset about

* excessive surveillance

* anti-whistleblower laws

* laws against freedom of information

then consider joining, they need your support to do what they do: [https://freiheitsrechte.org/join/](https://freiheitsrechte.org/join/)

Disclaimer: I'm not involved with the GFF except as a paying member.

<comment><USER4> European Digital Rights EDRi is the closest equivalent to the EFF in Europe. EDRi is an association of civil and human rights organizations from across Europe. It has existed since 2002.

[https://edri.org/](https://edri.org/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Digital_Rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Digital_Rights)

[https://edri.org/members/](https://edri.org/members/) (EFF from USA is also a member)

GFF is more German centered organization. I don't know how it relates to other German organizations like [https://digitalcourage.de/](https://digitalcourage.de/) and [https://digitalegesellschaft.de/](https://digitalegesellschaft.de/)

<comment><USER3> I have no idea why I never heard of them before, but this is the first time. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 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](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 this mirror doesn't have the search capabilities of the Project Gutenberg homepage, but it at least has all the files.

Now I'm actually curious about what is going to happen with Project Gutenberg mirrors. In general, many mirror admins (such as myself) join a project's mirror mailing list and don't necessarily pay attention to the right announcements to learn about this kind of legal minutia. That presents something of a logistics problem all around.

Putting aside ethics, it's likely that many/most downstream mirrors simply won't block German traffic. Project Gutenberg can stop redirecting German traffic to those mirrors on the fly, but they can't stop the mirrors from being available unless they start banning mirrors (and mirror syncing traffic) that don't enforce similar blocks...this seems logistically untenable.

It would be cool if we could get a lawyer to chime in about Project Gutenberg's liability with respect to forcing other mirrors to comply. For example, I'm making my own mirror available to Germany. Is Project Gutenberg complicit in a meaningful sense, if they allow me to continue mirroring?

<comment><USER6> I can still access it. No proxies or VPNs of any kind, just regular Telekom DSL.

<comment><USER7> According to heise.de, only IPv4 users are affected so far.

If you are using IPv6, you are still able to access it.

<comment><USER8> Oh, wow.

Yes, it works here with IPv6.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> PG did exactly the right thing here.

By only blocking these 18 books, nobody would have taken much notice of this. By blocking all German users from the site, they will get a lot of media attention, and S. Fischer Verlag will get a lot of bad press. Whether or not they will move from their position is questionable, but it will hurt them.

Just sent a small donation to PG.

Making an effort not to buy books from that publishing house ever again, and telling all my friends about it.

<comment><USER10> > Making an effort not to buy books from that publishing house ever again, and > telling all my friends about it.

Good luck with that. S. Fischer is owned by Holtzbrinck. They own Macmillan, Springer Nature and a bunch of other publishing houses. Here's a list of their subsidiaries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group#S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group#Subsidiaries_and_imprints)

<comment><USER11> Is it so uncommon for big companies to evaluate the performance of various divisions independently? If Holtzbrinck recognizes that S. Fischer's activities have caused that subsidiary to start losing money, they will probably modify their opinion. Why would they want to subsidize a losing bet using the profits from other divisions? The fact that two companies are owned by the same holding group does not really mean they are the "same" company, any more than two companies which are majority owned by the same private investors are the same company.

<comment><USER10> S. Fischer isn't just a independent subsidiary. The company is run by Monika Schoeller (born Monika von Holtzbrinck). She and her brother own large parts of Holtzbrinck and she's listed as a partner and member of the supervisory board on Holtzbrinck's website. (Her brother, Stefan von Holtzbrinck, is the CEO.)

> Why would they want to subsidize a losing bet using the profits from other > divisions?

Because owning S. Fischer, Rowohlt and Droemer Knaur means owning a large chunk of the german book market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 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.

<comment><USER13> 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?

<comment><USER14> 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.

<comment><USER15> >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.

<comment><USER14> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> To put things into perspective, the plaintiffs lawyers, Waldorf Frommer, are known for shady tactics. They have built an industry of putting immense pressure on private people. They don't shy away from lawsuits because they are cheap for them and menacing for the people. They don't always win, but under the line it is a very profitable business for them; they employ about 60 lawyers.

The public broadcast made documentaries about their cease-and-desist-industry against private people. Even the German Bundestag changed multiple times the law to stop that madness, but it took many years because the christian party opposed effective changes. Now, even though the law has changed on the 13th October 2017, they continue to pressure people into paying.

Some courts are heavily in favour of them, most notably the Amtsgericht München. This makes the situation even worse for people who cannot afford to appeal a judgement even though they are convinced they are not guilty, because the financial risk is too high. I would not be surprised if the judgement in this case gets overthrown in a higher court.

The defendants german lawyers, WILDE BEUGER SOLMECKE, are known for legal defense against Waldorf Frommer. Personally, I don't trust them completely because they offer an all-inclusive legal defense package that is conveniently priced at 2/3 of the value Waldorf Frommer asks for. This industry is a huge employment scheme for lawyers.

<comment><USER17> Publishing the name of the company will not really help to fight them. Every company is a team of people behind, so listing names of those people can have a better effect instead.

<comment><USER18> Could you expand on why you think the name of the company is not important here?

<comment><USER17> Companies are indifferent to the bad image, especially those not presented on the stocks market. People are more sensitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you want to take action, like boycott, these rent seekers. Here's a list of associated publishers:

        S. Fischer Verlag
            O.W. Barth
            Wolfgang Krüger
            Argon Verlag (de)
            Scherz Verlag (de)
                Fretz & Wasmuth
        Rowohlt Verlag
        Kiepenheuer & Witsch
        Verlagsgruppe Droemer Knaur
        Die Zeit
        Macmillan
        Farrar, Straus and Giroux
            Faber & Faber
        Henry Holt and Company
            Holt Paperbacks
            Metropolitan Books
            Times Books
            Owl Books
        Palgrave Macmillan
        Picador
        Roaring Brook Press
            Neal Porter Books
            First Second Books
        St. Martin's Press
        Tom Doherty Associates
            Tor Books
            Forge Books
        Bedford, Freeman and Worth Publishing Group
            W.H. Freeman
            Bedford-St. Martin's
            Worth Publishers
        Hayden-McNeil
        Nature Publishing Group
            Scientific American
        Audio Renaissance
        Renaissance Media
        Macmillan Publishers
            Palgrave Macmillan
            Pan Macmillan
                Macmillan
                Pan Books
                Picador
                Macmillan Children's Books
                Campbell Books
                Priddy Books
                Boxtree
                Sidgwick & Jackson
            Nature Publishing Group
            Macmillan Education

<comment><USER20> This list is not entirely accurate: Faber & Faber is not associated with Holtzbrinck.

<comment><USER21> The UK publisher is not but they sold the US company with that name (their former subsidiary) to Holtzbrinck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm really for open access to old books, but for playing devils advocate I can see the courts point: International websites have to respect local laws. After all those are the only ones I can directly influence (by voting, etc.) If we'd start to ignore this (even if it is in my advantage in this case), this means I have no influence any more on how companies are allowed to interact with me (which shouldn't be the case in a democratic state)

It's a hard decision as the internet is global and I don't have a real solution, but I don't think taking US (or any other) law as "the valid law on the Internet" is helpful.

<comment><USER23> > for playing devils advocate I can see the courts point: International > websites have to respect local laws

I think this is an untenable position as it would mean that any website, published from any country, hosted on servers in any country, would have to abide by the laws of the world's 193 countries.

Project Gutenberg's argument is that they are only a US concern — everyone involved officially is in the US, and the site is hosted in the US.

This is distinct from, say, a company explicitly providing a service to customers in a particular country (cf GDPR).

And, to counter your point with an extreme example, it would mean that no-one is ever able to criticise the Thai monarch on any website in the world lest they be jailed under Thailand's lèse majesté laws.

It's one thing to say that an in-country website respect that country's laws, it's another entirely to say that any website hosted anywhere in the world must respect that country's laws.

<comment><USER24> > I think this is an untenable position as it would mean that any website, > published from any country, hosted on servers in any country, would have to > abide by the laws of the world's 193 countries.

No. If you read the court order, they are arguing, that gutenberg.org is targeted at Germans. There are a few reason:

1\. there's a link on the front page to view the site in German

2\. there's a similar German project: [http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/](http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/)

3\. Gutenberg was after all German and .org isn't .us

4\. gutenberg.org was mentioned quite a lot in the German media

Also, let's not forget, that gutenberg.org was contacted about this in advance, multiple times.

So yeah: If you do a website and target a different country, ignore emails about legal issues from citizens of that country for months, you should start to think about respecting the laws of that country.

<comment><USER25> None of those pass muster.

1\. There are plenty of German-speakers not living in Germany.

2\. Is that organization somehow affiliated with project gutenberg? Or did it simply use the name, which gutenberg probably doesn't care to trademark and wouldn't have the funds to legally enforce anyway.

3\. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us.

4\. So all it takes to be subject to a country's courts is for that country's media to bring up your activities?

If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian countries' laws should be illegal, with those responsible subject to the authoritarian regimes' legal systems. That is _untenable_ if you have an ounce of respect for free speech or liberal values or a free internet.

Apply the reasoning to the laws of certain Middle Eastern countries. China. North Korea.

<comment><USER24> Those points can't be picked apart like you did. They add up and make it reasonable to argue that gutenberg.org is very well known in Germany and that lots of Germans have downloaded the books in question. The copyright owners are still selling those here and have probably already lost sales due to this. They tried to contact gutenberg.org, but where ignored. This isn't about free speech amd censorship.

> If you think those points create any sort of legal nexus in Germany, that > would also imply that most activism and protest against authoritarian > countries' laws should be illegal

illegal _where_?

> 3\. You must know that hardly anyone uses .us.

I really didn't know. .de is very common in Germany.

<comment><USER26> > Those points can't be picked apart like you did. They add up

Others are doing a fine job of taking apart the specifics, but it's important to understand why this form of argument is itself a fallacy.

Inference works by taking into account new evidence and using it to adjust the probability with which you believe something to be true. So if you see Bob wearing a red shirt, you are more likely to believe that Bob owns a red shirt. Could still be that he has borrowed it or something, but it's now more likely he owns one than it was previously. By contrast, if you go all through Bob's bedroom and find zero red shirts, that makes it less likely, even though it's still possible he owns one that isn't in his bedroom.

The problem with allowing plaintiffs or prosecutors to play this game is that they can take the list of everything you've ever done, ignore everything that makes what they're trying to prove less likely and present only the list of things that make it more likely. If you look only at that evidence then each piece of it increases the probability that you believe what they want you to believe, _regardless of whether it 's actually true_. How guilty they can make you look is directly proportional to their level of resources in finding things that make you look bad, independent of your actual guilt.

> I really didn't know. .de is very common in Germany.

Most countries have .co.uk, .org.uk, .net.uk, etc. The US doesn't have those. US companies use .com, .org, .net, etc. regardless that they're nominally not US-specific.

<comment><USER27> The US does have .us - it was actually the first ccTLD - and a complex hierarchy under it, it's just not commonly used for historical reasons.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us)

<comment><USER26> It's not commonly used because the hierarchy is weird. Originally the names had to be four deep, containing both the state and the locality, which is silly since all but the smallest operations span localities and even small companies often change locality. So they eventually allowed registrations directly at .us but there is still no .us equivalent to .org.uk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH.

S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH is part of Holtzbrinck Publishing Group since 1963 [0].

Macmillan Publishers Ltd is wholly owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing Group since 1999 [1]

Basically a sister company of Macmillan which may (or may not) be hit with the negative publicity fallout in the more than 70 countries it operates in...

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fischer_Verlag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fischer_Verlag) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Publishers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Publishers)

</comment><comment><USER29> 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.

<comment><USER30> I thought so too reading the first couple of pages of the decision, but in the judicial conclusion section, the jurisdictional issue is squarely resolved on the "targets German users" issue, which the court bases on 1) Partial translation of the website 2) The availability of German language works 3) The "anyone anywhere" language on the website 4) A disclaimer that people should check their local laws (implying in the opinion of the court that they knew non-US persons were accessing their material and intentionally targeting their offering to such people).

So yeah, while the language issue is only part of the judicial reasoning, is is indeed mentioned three times in the judicial conclusions. The court does not however appear to adopt plaintiff's theory on jurisdiction because some of the volunteers were German.

As such, I'm inclined to think that while the focus on the language issue is perhaps a bit overstated in their statement, it is definitely grounded in the opinion of the court.

As an aside though, I'm not convinced the court spent too much time considering the jurisdictional arguments here, which I think are probably the most important part of this case. Most of the analysis is concerned with whether the publisher plausibly alleged they own the copyright. I assume that is because that is usually the primary point of contention in copyright cases.

<comment><USER31> This legal theory is completely nuts. This means if I write something in, say, Russian on my website, and it's accessible to people from Russia, I am now considered to be obliged to follow every whim of Putin regarding my site's contents, even if I don't ever step my foot in Russia and don't want anything to do with it? Hopefully this is just plain old corruption and not idiotic legal theory that language you use makes you subject to whatever laws any state using the same language invents, even if you reside on the other side of the planet and want nothing to do with that country.

<comment><USER32> And what about publishing in English? Does the UK take precedence and the US has no standing? Or is a publisher subject to courts in both countries?

<comment><USER33> UK courts have always held that US based publications/websites commit libel in the UK if they have a readership in the UK, irrespective or the location of the publisher.

The US doesn't enforce those judgements any more, but the UK still holds the principle.

<comment><USER31> UK libel laws are a known garbage fire. I think people in UK are starting to wake up to that and try to fix it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I am completely confused by how this court order even works.

I am assuming that PGLAF is owned and operated in the US. "PGLAF has no actual presence or activity in Germany".

I suppose the Berne Convention allows US police to honor international court orders for copyright violation, but what's to stop a country from making a ridiculous law that extends the copyright length to 2100 years, creating court orders for the 1 billion people who own a Bible or other old text without paying license fees, and collecting all the money in the world?

<comment><USER35> > law that extends the copyright length to 2100 years, creating court orders > for the 1 billion people who own a Bible or other old text without paying > license fees, and collecting all the money in the world?

Generally speaking: Nothing. Practically speaking: Impossibility to enforce unless you're a major power. Look how american laws often get enforced world wide while North Korean law doesn't practically matter.

<comment><USER36> This is a sincere question. What American laws are enforced outside the US?

<comment><AUTHOR> DMCA, computer fraud have been and are used to extradite non-US citizens to put them in front of a US court for crimes under US law. Regardless of it being a crime in the country where the suspect lives/did the hack.

<comment><USER37> I feel if the countries of the parties involved were reversed, it would be a much different situation. Although the content could be hosted in Germany, and aimed at a German audience, other parts of your infrastructure (e.g. domain names, SSL certificates, CDNs) are most likely controlled by US companies, so you do not have much choice in whether you follow US law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> That's quite ironic, Gutenberg was German [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg)

<comment><USER39> And he was from Mainz, which is only a 30 minute drive from where this court case was tried.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> _In the US, copyright protection is based on the number of years since publication._

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.

<comment><USER40> It literally says this:

 _" in the US, copyright protection for works published prior to 1978 is based on the number of years since publication. "_

Did they edit the page since you posted your comment 18 hours ago?

<comment><USER27> Yes, as I copy-pasted. The footer also says it was updated today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > 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 been for many years. Copyright status in another > country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or > anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.

But why then even block access from Germany? If the stance is that _" Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books."_, what is the rationale for the blocking.

There is also the German Projekt Gutenberg ([http://projekt.gutenberg.de/](http://projekt.gutenberg.de/)) which is promoted by Spiegel Online (one of the most widely read German-language news websites [1]) even under their own domain as [http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/](http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/). I don't know what kind of relationship the German Projekt Gutenberg has with PGLAF. The German Projekt Gutenberg is accessible for me from Germany right now, but apparently has blocked the controversial books. For example the page that lists Heinrich Mann's works says about the book "Der Untertan": "Exists in Projekt Gutenberg-DE, but is blocked until 31.12.2020" {"Im Projekt Gutenberg- DE vorhanden (gesperrt bis 31.12.2020)"} [2].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_Online](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_Online)

[2] [http://projekt.gutenberg.de/autor/heinrich- mann-1637](http://projekt.gutenberg.de/autor/heinrich-mann-1637)

<comment><USER42> 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.

<comment><USER43> Well, no crap sherlock

I don't see why Project Gutenberg thinks it isn't subject to German law. And yes, it sucks and it is against the spirit of the internet.

But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website.

<comment><USER44> > But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website.

Sued by whom? Afaik gutenberg.org is registered in California, no German jurisdiction, the cease&desist orders usually used to shut something like this down don't apply here.

Same deal with ISPs: Afaik there's no legal framework to support anything like that, it's for exactly that reason why law firms like Waldorf and Frommer uses cease&desist letters to pretty much blackmail people into stopping the "distribution", it's all based on civil action.

<comment><USER43> Rights owners in Germany would request the blocking to the Justice system, due to theirs rights being violated

If someone hosts a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down

<comment><USER45> > a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume > something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down

[https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press- office/press-...](https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press- releases/2017/april/ustr-releases-2017-special-301-report) is what happens. Being on the 301 report watch lists can have pretty nasty consequences in trade relations with the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I have a contrary opinion to most others here.

PG should take steps to honour the copyright laws of other countries.

My reasoning is this:

Say hypothetically I started "Project Open" in a country with zero copyright protections.

Then by that country's laws, I can list Amazons entire kindle catalog, buy all their books and scan them, and make it open access.

And by the PG argument, ignore the laws of other countries that demand copyright protection for those books, until I get sued.

At which point I block the site for the countries based on IP address (as if proxies and VPNs and people who travel don't exist)

If someone did that, they'd probably be characterised as a pirate site and shut down by the FBI.

<comment><USER47> Two counterpoints:

* The subset of things that are legal in all jurisdictions is probably rather small. Let's say hypothetically that a country bans the distribution of all works in English - should PG comply with that as well?

* Why should I have to care about laws beyond my jurisdiction when setting up a service? That seems like a tremendous burden.

> they'd probably be characterised as a pirate site and shut down by the FBI.

That's a likely outcome, but if Project Open is operating lawfully in its own country, on what grounds should the FBI be able to claim jurisdiction? Unilaterally applying laws over foreign persons in foreign territories feels like an overstep.

<comment><USER33> > Let's say hypothetically that a country bans the distribution of all works > in English - should PG comply with that as well?

If there's an international treaty (or indeed several) backing it up? Probably. Unlikely that there would be though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> > 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.

<comment><USER35> This is an extremely short (and misleading) summary of the courts argument. Among the reasons for assuming jurisdiction is the assumption that project Gutenberg targets users in Germany and part of that assumption is Project Gutenberg's statement that the goal is to make the works available globally (thus including germany) (quote: "anyone anywhere"). The fact that content and at least parts of the page is available in Germany adds to that assumption. It's been established that websites targeting german people (also) fall under german jurisdiction.

So no, not an extraordinary or new theory of international law.

<comment><USER49> It is, however, a terrible theory, since the immediate effect is that every website is subject to every jurisdiction in the world.

<comment><USER35> No, that's not the effect. If you make a website in the US hosted on US servers that does not obviously target german customers then you don't fall under german jurisdiction. It's not sufficient that your site is generally accessible from germany.

However, if you do add things as "we ship to germany" to a shop then you fall under german jurisdiction - which is fine in my books, because the customer should have a simpler legal recourse than the company.

Having to conform to foreign laws is just the flip side of being able to reach those people easily.

<comment><USER50> Or, if you add German translations? What if you add a link to Google translate, allowing German translations?

<comment><USER35> If you that in the intention of targeting german citizens (or all people of the world), yes, that could lead to a court assuming jurisdiction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I am not a lawyer, but...

I hope and suspect that the US courts would refuse to enforce the judgement against Project Gutenberg. A little bit of research shows that for a foreign judgement to be enforced, a country would need to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, at least under the US law that would apply if the judgement was being enforced.

Given all the overreach of European governments over the past few years (VATMOSS, GDPR, and now this), I suspect the time is ripe for something like the SPEECH act, a law clarifies that when a US citizen makes something available on the US, that does does not subject them to the law of a non-US country - and that allows the US citizen to claim court costs if someone tries to register a judgement against them.

<comment><USER33> > I suspect the time is ripe for something like the SPEECH act, a law > clarifies that when a US citizen makes something available on the US, that > does does not subject them to the law of a non-US country - and that allows > the US citizen to claim court costs if someone tries to register a judgement > against them.

The US would have to pull out of all international copyright treaties and the WTO for this to happen, so it's not going to happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Btw, Waldorf Frommer is specialized in these questionable law suites. They built an business around sueing people for torrenting things.

</comment><comment><USER53> It seemed that putting up a website these days means one either has to obey all laws of all counties of the world at the same time.

Or one has to restrict access to those counties where one follows the law, creating a fragmented web.

This is only going to get worse as the world keeps dialing back on globalization.

</comment><comment><USER54> What would be the consequence of not complying? Would they just require German ISPs to filter the site? Could they enforce a judgement on a US company?

</comment><comment><USER55> Seems punitive to me, rather than 'fair'. US copyright law has no jurisdiction the same as German copyright law, other than by coincidence of geography/volunteer base. I think Project Gutenberg is doing the best thing it can for itself. I associate the project with doing the best thing it can for people.

In general, we're going to run into increasing numbers of cases like this.

</comment><comment><USER56> > "Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the > world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 > books, there is every reason to think that this will keep happening"

Why do German courts think they can overstep jurisdictions?

<comment><USER57> See, they think they don't.

From the court document:

> The action is admissible. In particular, the District Court of Frankfurt am > Main has international and local jurisdiction pursuant to § 32 ZPO (German > Rules of Civil Procedure). According to § 32 ZPO, the court of the district > where an unlawful act was committed has jurisdiction for suits brought > against such acts. Unlawful acts within the meaning of § 32 ZPO also include > copyright infringements. Along with local jurisdiction, this provision also > governs the international jurisdiction of German courts. An unlawful act > within the meaning of § 32 ZPO is deemed to have been committed both at the > place where the offense was committed and at the place where the offense had > its effect, so jurisdiction optionally applies to the place where the > infringement was committed or where the legally protected interest was > affected. A conclusive claim of facts substantiating an unlawful act > committed within the judicial district is enough to establish jurisdiction. > § 32 ZPO also covers claims for injunctive relief. According to § 32 ZPO, if > a copyright or related property right is allegedly infringed by making the > protected property publicly accessible via a website, the place where the > unlawful act was committed is Germany if the asserted rights are protected > in Germany and if the website is (also) publicly accessible in Germany. > However, intended availability of the web presence in Germany (among other > countries) is not a requirement (...).

This - to me - is quite a funny piece of jurisdiction and probably one of the reasons why international mediation processes do exist.

<comment><USER58> Yet the plaintiff in this case rejected international mediation. They're hell bent on keeping this case in German court.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> > So the court thinks that the presence of content in German means that courts > in Germany have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that PGLAF is entirely > in the US?

I suspect that if the Brits started claiming jurisdiction — well, _everywhere_ - on this basis, then that would raise eyebrows

<comment><USER33> There are some limitations on it nowadays, but they do and used to a LOT more.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I hope frivolous lawsuits such as this further inspire non profits to take their hosting to decentralized providers such as zeronet and ipfs. There's almost no need to host these projects centrally anymore, and it seems to only invite attacks such as this one.

<comment> shaki-dora It's not frivolous, almost by definition, if you win a lawsuit. You can disagree with this court's judgement on all sorts of issues, but Germany isn't usually known to be a banana republic with corrupt and/or completely incompetent judges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> _The Plaintiff is S. Fischer Verlag, GmbH_

Are they related to Springer Verlag and/or that other German publishing group whose main objective was to take collections of Wikipedia articles, verbatim, and turn them into books?

<comment><USER61> "Verlag" is just the German word for publishing house.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Seems like every major part of the internet is under attack by the media, the courts, governments and the elite. Every day, it's another major part of the internet having to defend itself.

</comment><comment><USER63> It's great irony that Johannes Gutenberg, the person who the project is named after, was German.

</comment><comment><USER64> I am in Germany, and I just opened Moby Dick on Project Gutenberg. I do have native IPv6, though, someone already pointed out that the block only affects IPv4.

</comment><comment><USER65> What would have happened if PGLAF had just ignored the lawsuit? Since they have no presence in Germany what could the German courts have done to them?

</comment><comment><USER22> That's odd. I always thought it was "life + 70 years" in the whole EU. (According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths))

Here in Austria the law regarding copyright is pretty similar to Germany so it's really interesting why no one has sued before.

<comment><USER33> Well, "always" since about 1996 depending on the country, but yes, it is.

I am curious about what Project Gutenberg would do if this judgement was replicated in every country in the EU, which feels plausible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Blocking the whole country is an interesting move, mostly because it has the potential to generate a much greater public outcry than simply masking away the few specific books in question, putting a greater public pressure to reevaluate the entire legal constructs surrounding these issues. It's a display of standing for your principles without compromise.

</comment><comment><USER67> I'm not sure I follow why people are upset with the publishing company that's sueing. They do own the copyright. One can disagree with the law and think it should be changed (I strongly believe that) but that's up to lawmakers to do. It would be irresponsible for the publisher to ignore that their ownership is being ignored.

<comment><USER50> According to the linked faq,

* They did not own all of the copyrights at the time the suit was filed. In fact, they may not own the rights now.

* International treaties like the Berne Convention have means to resolve these disputes. The plaintiffs have ignored those and filed suit in their own, likely incorrect, jurisdiction.

* The suit, and the decision, does not ask for the texts in question be blocked in German jurisdiction. It calls for them to be taken down entirely, even though they are legal in the US.

<comment><USER21> The judgement clearly states that the books in question should be blocked from being accessed from Germany. The court is aware that such blocks can be circumvented but that's still fine. They never claimed jurisdiction over what happens to users outside of Germany and explicitly haven't ordered the site to take down those books completely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> This might be helpful. When I got randomly blocked for 24 hours (in the US), recently, some of the mirrors still worked. You can find them here: [https://www.gutenberg.org/MIRRORS.ALL](https://www.gutenberg.org/MIRRORS.ALL)

I'd be interested to see if they work in this case.

</comment><comment><USER69> Can someone explain to me why project Gutenberg has decided to block the COMPLETE site for German IPs instead of just blocking the books in question?

Is this just a dick move to enrage people and get attention?

And they could have blocked just the pages with the books in question directly after receiving the copyright violation notification...

<comment><USER18> this is discussed here in the comments extensively. The best answer is that they block Germany because they expect if they complied by only blocking certain books they would have to deal with many more requests in the future. They also decided to take this chance to make a statement to encourage a public debate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> 70 years for copyright (no matter from what point) is a ridiculous length to begin with.

<comment><USER71> It is even more painful when you realize that _all_ of the 18 books mentioned were published in or before 1920.

 _Most of these books are over a century old._

I would expect that between the extremes of copyright abolishment and the current system of 'life + 70 years', most people would agree that some amount of protection is fair, but I seriously doubt that a majority feels that anything over 30 years since publication is necessary, much less considered fair. I wonder if that was ever researched in recent years.

Not that it matters; global copyright laws are permantently frozen because amending them is a costly matter requiring global coordination, and there is little political will to tackle this (or even consider it a problem). Any attempt to lower the extend of copyright (in any jurisdiction) will be met by a wall of well-paid lawyers and lobbyists pay-rolled by all the major content owners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I would second the motion that copyright laws are a f*ing joke. But given that laws are the way they are, there isn't clearly a good guy and a bad guy in this story. I really don't think it's wrong for German courts to intervene when German laws are broken in the way that a U.S.-based party facilitates a German-based party (who reads copyrighted material without paying for it) infringing on the rights of another German-based party (who authored or otherwise acquired rights in the material).

I think it's wrong for the U.S. to be a "safe haven" for people whose attitude towards the rest of the world is "screw you and your laws." That's exactly Google's legal strategy with privacy laws: They make sure everything they do when they violate E.U. privacy laws somehow comes under U.S. jurisdiction, which says something to the effect of "...well U.S.-based persons have a right to privacy, but, as for the rest of the world, dear Google, you hereby have permission to do whatever you want". (At least that's my non-expert understanding of U.S. privacy laws. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm a huge fan of PGLAF and the work it's doing, but I'm sorry to say that, in blocking all of Germany for everything, I do see a little bit of a reflection of this "screw the rest of the world" notion. Of course I do recognize that it's probably not borne out of pure bad attitude, but rather limited resources. When they clear works to be published, their clearance process is probably based only on U.S.-laws, and then they put it up globally. The solution would have to be to clear the rights on a matrix where every work needs to be looked at from the point of view of every jurisdiction, and access-controlled accordingly. Obviously that's a resource-intensive task, and I totally respect that PGLAF says they don't have the resources for that.

So really, what this is probably driving towards, is that every jurisdiction needs its own Project Gutenberg, with access restricted to that jurisdiction, and clearing rights according to its own laws. If a German legal expert reading this is interested in taking on such a task, please do get in touch. I'm up for the role of being the techie in this operation.

</comment><comment><USER73> I wonder if it works the other way around, in general:

\- country A has different copyright laws than country B.

\- A copyright holder from country A asks an organization in country B to take off some content based on country A's copyright laws.

\- The organization in country B decides not to take off the content, as it is perfectly fine under country B copyright laws, and block whole country A access.

So here are some questions:

\- Might this case set a precedent?

\- Some of those weird, small and autonomous one-island countries can come up with some very relaxed copyright laws and start distribute content "legally" ?

<comment><USER74> I wonder if, given their broad reply, that project shouldn't just block everyone BUT the US, since they decided that US law is the only that applies to them.

Now, I don't like these laws one bit, but I also really don't like this (over)reaction. If your legal counsel argues that you should block a country to avoid being sued for different laws, shouldn't the same counsel point out that this is likely for most of the world?

Or is Germany the oddball here and the majority of the world doesn't have CP laws, or doesn't care or .. have laws that are literally one to one compatible with the US ones?

<comment><USER75> Most countries are signatories to the WIPO treaty that enshrines a global "standard" on copyright laws. However, each individual country's legislation is different -- though generally most countries have similar or looser copyright laws than America (since America was the source of the current insane variant of copyright we are experiencing, rather than the previously- sane British copyright system defined by the Statute of Anne).

However, Europe has some really strange copyright directives that go even further than the US. For instance, architecture is copyrightable, and so taking and distributing photos of the _outside_ of a building is not technically allowed without permission from the owner. So taking tourist photos within an EU country and posting them online could be seen as copyright infringement.

Of course, this is just a general guideline, if you actually want to do business you need to ask lawyers familiar with the laws of all the countries you wish to do business with (though this is prohibitively expensive for volunteer efforts, which explains why they didn't do it).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Unfortunately, the donation page [https://www.gutenberg.org/donate](https://www.gutenberg.org/donate) is also blocked in Germany :(

</comment><comment><USER77> Donated too. I haven't have a fantastic use of the project until now, but I do appreciate the effort, and the will to resist the bullies.

</comment><comment><USER78> Does anyone know why the books involved in the lawsuit are in the public domain in the US but not in Germany?

<comment><USER79> That's in the article. In the US, the copyright term (for the relevant period) was the date they were published plus n years. In (most of) Europe, it's the life of the author plus n years.

So for a book published 50 years before the author died, the term expires in the US long before it does in (most of) Europe.

(This has since changed in the US, but did not apply retroactively. So published+n still applies to works published before the change to life+n)

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> > "It also seeks punitive damages and fines."

But there is no such thing as punitive damages under German law?

<comment><USER45> The pglaf document isn't the most accurate in general (eg. claiming that Germany has "life + 75" terms, while correctly calculating life + 70 right in the next sentence; or discussing that the 56 years rule will end in the US in 2034, since books published after 1978 are subject to life + 70 as well - <USER2> guess Gutenberg won't be able to publish a single new book between 2034 and 2048), so I guess the claims made were only about damages (even if pglaf might consider them "punitive") and fines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Is this Verlag related to the academic publisher / rent seeker, Springer Verlag?

<comment><USER45> Verlag means "publisher", it's not part of a name.

(There are two publishers going by "Springer" though, you were referring to J. Springer, not A. Springer)

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> IMSLP should follow suit, instead of taking any chances, until German courts come to their senses about jurisdiction.

(For those who don't know, IMSLP hosts a lot of sheet music scans that are out of copyright in canada, and not in the EU).

</comment><comment><USER83> > The is no reason to remove them. The 18 eBooks are all in the public domain > in the US, and have been for many years. Copyright status in another country > is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or > anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books.

Suppose a country X existed which doesn't honor US copyrights at all. By symmetry, it seems that Project Gutenberg would approve of a website hosted entirely in country X, offering full texts of all publications by US authors, up to the present day, for download by anyone in the world, including in the US.

I do realize that PG is under no obligation to have an opinion on any such hypothetical circumstance. But nevertheless, that seems to be the implication. Are they really so anarchic? Or do they just think US copyright laws are more important than everyone else's?

<comment><USER50> For many years, X was China. I have no information about whether PG approved of that or not. PG follows the laws of the country in which it is based.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> These copyright laws are such a joke! Typical of nowadays germany. Nothing is working anymore, except you run an army of lawyers and "cash-into" the local government. Its such a joke, rly.

</comment><comment><USER85> The crux of the argument seems to be whether German copyright applies to US websites served to German users; Project Gutenberg's view and the Court's view are below.

Project Gutenberg:

 _Q: So the court thinks that the presence of content in German means that courts in Germany have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that PGLAF is entirely in the US? A: Yes, that was the original basis of the claim for jurisdiction, which the Court accepted in their judgement. Since then, there some more recent decisions in the European Court of Justice, and other German courts, that support this theory based on a Web site being accessible from a country. Those other cases involve companies that actually operate (for- profit) in Europe, and cases between two European countries (i.e. part of the EU). They are not consistent with prior laws and cases, even in Europe, and also not consistent with provisions of the Berne Convention and other international law. In addition, PGLAF has pointed out that Germany is widely spoken in the US (the third-most common second language), and also is widely taught in schools and colleges. PGLAF has no actual presence or activity in Germany._

Court Decision:

 _Reasons for the decision The action is admissible and well founded. 1\. The action is admissible. In particular, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main has international and local jurisdiction pursuant to § 32 ZPO (German Rules of Civil Procedure). According to § 32 ZPO, the court of the district where an unlawful act was committed has jurisdiction for suits brought against such acts. Unlawful acts within the meaning of § 32 ZPO also include copyright infringements. Along with local jurisdiction, this provision also governs the international jurisdiction of German courts. An unlawful act within the meaning of § 32 ZPO is deemed to have been committed both at the place where the offense was committed and at the place where the offense had its effect, so jurisdiction optionally applies to the place where the infringement was committed or where the legally protected interest was affected. A conclusive claim of facts substantiating an unlawful act committed within the judicial district is enough to establish jurisdiction. § 32 ZPO also covers claims for injunctive relief. Accordingto§32ZPO,ifacopyrightorrelatedpropertyrightisallegedlyinfringedby making the protected property publicly accessible via a website, the place where the unlawful act was committed isGermanyiftheassertedrightsareprotectedinGermanyand if the website is (also) publicly accessible in Germany. However, intended availability of the web presence in Germany (among other countries) is not a requirement (Federal Court of Justice, GRUR 2016, 1048, marginal number 18 - An Evening with Marlene Dietrich; cf. Regional Court of Hamburg, Judgment dated 06 /19/2015 - 308 0 161/13, BeckRS 2015, 18942; Regional Court of Hamburg, Judgment dated 06/17/2016 - 308 0 161/13, BeckRS 2016, 12262). These requirements are met in this case, as the works in dispute which are protected in Germany are indisputably also available in Germany. Also, the plaintiff has convincingly argued that the availability has led to downloads in Germany. Apart from that, the first defendant's website is also intended to target German users. This is supported by the fact that the website is partially in German, that the site offers German- language works, and that the first defendant explicitly strives to make the works available globally ("anyone anywhere"). This is not contradicted by the disclaimer in the first defendant's website stating that users must verify if they are entitled to download the works in their respective countries. Rather, this disclaimer indicates that the defendants are aware that their website is also visited by users from other countries than the United States._

</comment><comment><USER86> So why don't they have a Tor onion link?

I mean, Facebook does, for dog's sake!

</comment><comment><USER87> This is adorable. I wish other sites like YouTube, GitHub, Wikipedia etc would also refuse to remove something or block something in particular for particular country.

<comment><USER88> (1) This is not adorable. (2) I feel this is similar to "first they came for the socialists"[1] idea: your country could be next to be blocked access from Github, Youtube or Wikipedia. It's a ridiculous idea that everyone should do this.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..).

<comment><USER87> I would absolutely prefer my country to try blocking access to Github, Youtube or Wikipedia rather than Github/Youtube/Wikipedia to block particular content for it on its demand. In fact I would bypass the block anyway so it doesn't really matter practically but it matters a lot from the political point of view.

The governments/institutions demanding web sites to prevent their citizens from accessing particular content are modern day legal terrorists and tyrants and nobody should ever agree to negotiate such things with them nor volunteer to participate in oppressing their citizens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> German users, please do not access or clone the following github repositories: "Der Untertan," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Der- Untertan_38126](https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Untertan_38126) "Die Ehrgeizige," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Die- Ehrgeizige_43335](https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Ehrgeizige_43335) "Professor Unrat oder Das Ende eines Tyrannen," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Professor-Unrat-oder-Das- Ende-e...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Professor-Unrat-oder-Das-Ende-eines- Tyrannen_35264) "Der Vater," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Der- Vater_33329](https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Vater_33329) "Flöten und Dolche," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Fl-ten-und-Dolche-- Novellen_312...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Fl-ten-und-Dolche-- Novellen_31218) "Flaubert und die Herkunft des modernen Romans," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Flaubert-und-die-Herkunft- des-m...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Flaubert-und-die-Herkunft-des-modernen- Romans_33328) "Buddenbrooks," [https://github.com/GITenberg/BuddenbrooksVerfall-einer- Famil...](https://github.com/GITenberg/BuddenbrooksVerfall-einer- Familie_34811) "Der Tod in Venedig," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Tod-in- Venedig_12108](https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-Tod-in-Venedig_12108) "Der kleine Herr Friedemann," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-kleine-Herr- FriedemannNovel...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Der-kleine-Herr- FriedemannNovellen_36766) "Tristan," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Tristan_13810](https://github.com/GITenberg/Tristan_13810) "Gladius Dei," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere- Stunde_120...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere-Stunde_12053) "Schwere Stunde," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere- Stunde_120...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Gladius-Dei--Schwere-Stunde_12053) "Königliche Hoheit," [https://github.com/GITenberg/K-nigliche- HoheitRoman_35328](https://github.com/GITenberg/K-nigliche-HoheitRoman_35328) "Tonio Kröger," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Tonio-Kr- ger_23313](https://github.com/GITenberg/Tonio-Kr-ger_23313) "Die Ermordung einer Butterblume und andere Erzählungen," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Die- Ermordung-einer-Butterblume...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Ermordung- einer-Butterblume-und-andere-Erz-hlungen_31660) "Die drei Sprünge des Wang- lun," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-drei-Spr-nge-des-Wang- lunCh...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-drei-Spr-nge-des-Wang- lunChinesischer-Roman_43987) "Die Lobensteiner reisen nach Böhmen," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Lobensteiner-reisen- nach-B-...](https://github.com/GITenberg/Die-Lobensteiner-reisen-nach-B- hmenZw-lf-Novellen-und-Geschichten_36779) "Wallenstein," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-I.-- of-2-_43931](https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-I.--of-2-_43931) "Wallenstein," [https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-II.-- of-2-_43932](https://github.com/GITenberg/Wallenstein.-II.--of-2-_43932)

</comment><comment><USER90> > 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 naive and total blockage "revenge" is just plain childish.

<comment><USER91> > total blockage "revenge" is just plain childish.

It seems like it is working to get them publicity. If germany doesn't like that they are now being blocked, then they should change their laws.

It is their website, so too bad for germany.

Protesting ridiculous copywrite laws is perfectly reasonable.

<comment><USER44> > If germany doesn't like that they are now being blocked, then they should > change their laws.

Sadly it ain't as easy as that, the copyright lobby is very powerful in Germany, with their very own special interest laws like "mitstörerhaftung" [0] and the "Impressumspflicht". It's stuff like that which prevents open WLAN easily being run and operated because in Germany the person running the AP is liable for everything that happens trough said connection.

There are a ton of law firms who solely generate their income by sending out bulk cease&desist letters to torrent seeders, people who don't have a proper "Impressum" on their webpage and a number of other "formal" reasons. Kindergartens and retirement homes have gotten c&d letters over singing Christmas songs amounting to "copyrighted content".

These letters pretty much boil down to "Pay this fine and sign that you won't do it again if you still do it again you are liable for several thousands of € in damages".

Most people just pay the "fine" (usually starting at around 500€ sometimes quite a bit higher depending on the content) as it's easier and less hassle compared to taking it to the court, which are quite often technological inept and thus are very likely to side with the claimant's version of "This is theft/piracy!". It's pretty much a very own sub-sector of law firms in Germany.

Most people often think practices like these are something reserved to the US, a while ago, but Germany has its fair share of copyright insanity going on too. At this point, I'd guess Germany is even a far bit crazier than the US.

[0] [https://qz.com/694618/why-is-it-impossible-to-find-free- wi-f...](https://qz.com/694618/why-is-it-impossible-to-find-free-wi-fi-in- germany/)

[1] [https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an- impressum/](https://www.rockit-internet.de/en/what-is-an-impressum/)

<comment><USER92> Then Germany as an entity can deal with the results of their society being structured in a way that allows those special interests to have that level of control. America has the same problems as well but it's be unreasonable to expect people in other sovereignties to make special accommodations for me just because my government is making me follow a different set of rules

<comment><USER44> > it's be unreasonable to expect people in other sovereignties to make special > accommodations for me

Nobody is expecting PG to do anything like that, what is expected is that PG just removes these 18 books from German access, if they don't then the German publisher can cease&desist them over giving access to said books, which would have no effect at all on GP due to it being an entity that's registered in California, so German c&d letters have literally no effect on them.

GP is taking a stance here, which I very much appreciate as a German, but quite a few people here seem to be misunderstanding what's actually happening here or expected from GP.

<comment><USER50> There is nothing in the decision about "German access".

" _The defendants are ordered, on penalty of an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to 6 months, for each case of non- compliance, said imprisonment to be imposed on the second defendant, to cease and desist from making the following works publicly available or letting them be made publicly available, namely:..._ "

Plus damages.

<comment><USER44> The fact that they are talking about Germany is self-evident because it's a German court and they even wrote it out plainly, if you'd bothered to read further than the part you quoted:

"via the website www.gutenberg.org (including its sub-pages) without the plaintiff's consent, if and to the extent to which it is possible for internet users to access them (screen display and/or download) from Germany."

If you want to talk about national courts censoring content from the whole www then you need to talk to US courts and their "chilling effects".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> Interesting that it's still available to me. Uncomfortable situation over all, but an understandable decision.

</comment><comment><USER94> I made a tiny donation just now.

</comment><comment><USER95> tl;dr Project gutenberg is a USA entity, and in the USA copyright ends x years after publication. In Germany (and UK and many other EU countries) it's x years after authors death. A Troll Law Firm sued under German copyright and seems to have won the first round.

So this is Brexit for me. We in the UK think we are going to "take back control", but the nature of globalisation just means more and more situations like this. and there are only three ways it goes

\- race to the top best regulations are adopted globally. Everyone but the best is a rule taker

\- race to the bottom just awful

\- confusoploy bad - where you go to gutenberg to get shakespeare's othello and have to sign 19'waivers saying you are not in a dozen jurisdictions that claim copyright still exists

Personally I think confusoploy is our likely destiny. sadly

</comment><comment><USER96> Somewhat ironic.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg)

</comment><comment><USER97> So what? Even my Dad knows how to use a VPN.

</comment><comment><USER98> What are the precedents?

</comment><comment><USER99> another Neuland in Germany

</comment><comment><USER100> those pesky germans at it again..

</comment><comment><USER101> Now this is how you deal with government censorship. Take note, Github, Youtube, Instagram, Twitter et. al.

</comment><comment><USER102> _> The Court in Germany has promoted a theory that it has jurisdiction, mainly because the www.gutenberg.org site has some content in the German language._

Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg was a German citizen, certainly any site that takes his name submits to German laws!

</comment><comment><USER6> "The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US"

Cute. Who cares about what US law may require?

<comment><USER103> Considering how much US patent law has been enforced abroad: most governments.

I do hope that these proceedings _are_ forced to take place in the US, because that would set a precedent, however insignificant, that copyright _does not_ apply in other countries.

<comment><USER6> I hope that countries other than America still get to have their own court system. I certainly don't want America to have final say over everything in the world.

<comment><USER104> Neither do most US citizens.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


GitHub publishes DMCA deletion notifications sent by Bilibili - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2019/04/2019-04-23-bilibili.md <comment><USER2> Not great...

MD5 password hashing: [https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1...](https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1359a2a501009b976b02bb27e4949cc4e77/app/service/main/passport- game/service/passport_login.go#L185)

Hardcoded credentials: [https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1...](https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1359a2a501009b976b02bb27e4949cc4e77/app/admin/ep/marthe/dao/tapd.go#L17)

More hard coded secrets: [https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1...](https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1359a2a501009b976b02bb27e4949cc4e77/app/service/ep/footman/cmd/tapd/tapd.go#L54)

This configuration is my favourite: [https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili- go-common/blob/8866d1...](https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1359a2a501009b976b02bb27e4949cc4e77/library/queue/databus/report/conf.go)

And of course, RSA keys which they use for all of their RSA encryption: [https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1...](https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1359a2a501009b976b02bb27e4949cc4e77/app/service/main/passport- game/service/passport_key.go)

... their problem is not that the source code is all public over the internet now... their problem is the engineering team. If source code leaks the worst outcome should be some IP leakage, but not a compromised live system. That can and should be easily avoided by not having everything in your source code, especially when you are such a big company with so many employees...

<comment><USER3> I'm a new developer (an intern, actually). I just started writing a system that requires a couple secret strings. Currently I just have them as constants with my code, with the idea that I'll figure out something to do with them once I make sure everything is working.

What _should_ I do with those secrets though? I'm not sure how to store them securely. So far I've been considering putting them in the server configuration so they can be read from environment variables, but that seems inconvenient for me and other developers and also not that much more secure.

<comment><USER4> You read them from a config file and fill them into the config by hand while deploying. Never push secrets embedded into code or portions of the config file to your source repo.

You can hardcode the secrets to test stuff, but the first time you push the code to the repo should be the time you change it to reading from config. And add config to gitignore cause even if you don't stage the particular lines with the secrets in them, there will come one time where you'll rush or will have too long of a day when you'll push those secrets by accident. If you've got a public repo, then it's over. On a private repo then you may not notice this or not remember to remove it with a force push.

A point in time when you get tired of juggling config files manually in dev/prod is the point in time you explore the system for secret management and auto build/deployment as clearly your project has become useful/popular enough.

Those are my IMO and what I use as thresholds. Of course, if your environment is more relaxed there's no limit on further improving this practice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Heard about this a couple days ago, crazy stuff. For those who don't know, bilibili is a massive video hosting platform in China aimed toward the younger generation.

So the question is who leaked it and why? Just a disgruntled employee or the effect of 996?

<comment><USER6> What is 996?

<comment><USER7> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> As far as I know, an employee who was illegally laid off by bilibili put part of the company's background code on GitHub to vent his anger. And then GitHub has directionally shielded the keywords "bilibili" and "go-common", But it can be bypassed by typing only one character less. there are still a lot of projects alive. It is not yet known who leaked it. Also for the reason.

<comment><USER8> > illegally laid off

Source please?

<comment><AUTHOR> > illegally laid off for this part, I can't give credible sources, I know it > from hearsay

<comment><USER9> You could link to the hearsay, assuming it was online.

FWIW, the report you link in your other comment has a screenshot of a conversation where someone claims that the code was leaked by an intern from Nankai University who didn't know how to use git. [1] That they're identified by their university makes me suspect that it's a rumor (edit: making fun of the university), though.

[1] [https://www.heibai.org/zb_users/upload/2019/04/2019042306214...](https://www.heibai.org/zb_users/upload/2019/04/20190423062149_35805.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It appears to already be on IPFS

[https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmYiQ5jbtmx24ketNA65MJ3VpSDFWikGmvnBErq...](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmYiQ5jbtmx24ketNA65MJ3VpSDFWikGmvnBErqpmiXtRC)

</comment><comment><USER11> Too late. GitHub is scraped very frequently (as in seconds) for sensitive stuff. It's out and github cannot do anything about it

<comment><USER12> "...the median time to discovery for a key leaked to GitHub is 20 seconds..." [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19602279](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19602279)

</comment></comment><comment> dis-sys Sure, Bilibili's copyright must be respected, no question on that whatsoever. That being said, let's have a look on how this multi-billion company treats its programmers -

flv.js is opened sourced by bilibili, it has 14,668 starts on github [1]. Bilibili paid the smart & hardworking programmer who single handedly started this project and made it popular $700 USD per month [2], there is a very long zhihu.com thread [2] on this matter with 4 million views and almost 400 detailed responses. $700 is about 10% of the fair market rate in China for skills like that.

Sorry, but I am not going to take the moral high ground and defend bilibili's rights any time soon. It is a company violating the rights of its programmers on hourly basis.

Shame on you BiliBili.

[1] [https://github.com/Bilibili/flv.js](https://github.com/Bilibili/flv.js)

[2] [https://www.zhihu.com/question/53686737](https://www.zhihu.com/question/53686737)

<comment><USER13> > $700 is about 10% of the fair market rate in China for skills like that.

So you are suggesting $7000 for skills like that? There are still countless PHP / Golang / Rails jobs going for under $2K. While I agree $700 is insanely low even if you are in some Tier 3 cities, I don't think 10% paint an accurate picture of the current state of Programming Paid in China.

<comment> dis-sys As clearly mentioned in the reply, $7,000/month is the fair market rate for someone who can propose/promote/complete such a project with visible impact on the community.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Code base is fair game DMCA-wise. I wonder about the private keys though. I don't think they are copyrightable (although it would cool to have a poem as the private key). So, does DMCA cover that too?

<comment><USER15> > (although it would cool to have a poem as the private key)

Apple does this with Mac OS X. The System Management Controller contains a key, and the "Dont Steal Mac OS X" kernel extension (which checks for that key) contains a poem that must be present for Mac OS X to run.

[http://osxdaily.com/2010/03/19/anti-piracy-message-in-mac- os...](http://osxdaily.com/2010/03/19/anti-piracy-message-in-mac-os-x-kernel- extension/)

<comment><USER10> That's the saddest poem I've ever read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Backups [https://github.com/search?q=go- common](https://github.com/search?q=go-common)

</comment><comment><USER17> HERO.md: [https://gitlab.com/wkingfly/openbilibili/blob/master/HERO.md](https://gitlab.com/wkingfly/openbilibili/blob/master/HERO.md)

I have no idea what it means, but I like it.

<comment><USER18> These are playable races and character classes from Warcraft III (and the expansion The Frozen Throne).

Most of these probably also appear in World of Warcraft, though I cannot say for sure.

As to why this file is in the top directory of the repo, your guess is as good as mine.

<comment><USER19> I think more specifically this is referring to heroes from Dota (which of course links back to Warcraft III as you said)

<comment><USER20> nah, they are just the default heroes that exist in Warcraft 3 Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne, which is easily discerned by the names and the fact the races are listed as titles and the Neutral heroes doesn't have a race mentioned in English

Also there are a lot more heroes in the Dota map for Warcraft 3 than on that short list

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I use something like this to set a few global variables at build time.

This keeps my secrets out of the source code.

go build \

        -ldflags="\

        -X main.programVersion=`git describe` \

        -X main.username=$USERNAME \

        -X main.password=$PASSWORD"

This isn't perfect, of course, because you can just use strings(1) to find the secrets embedded in the binary, but it is a step up from what they did.

It's fine for our internal go apps. I'm not sure what I would do if the secrets were for connecting to public cloud infrastructure though.

Perhaps encrypt them with a separate key per customer, then feed in the key via an env variable?

Any ideas?

<comment> duncan-donuts I would read connection string information from the env. This[0] might be useful if you're not familiar with 12 factor apps.

0: [https://12factor.net/config](https://12factor.net/config)

<comment><USER22> An example configuration file is also acceptable. It is also less prone to leakage if your application runs other untrusted (or simply less trusted) code and does not sanitize the environment first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you don't have time to integrate with a secret store, at least use something like Blackbox to store encrypted in git: [https://github.com/StackExchange/blackbox](https://github.com/StackExchange/blackbox)

</comment><comment><USER24> Apart from the storing secret in repository, I'm quite impressed by their repository structure. It looks a lot better than the mess I often see in our internal projects.

</comment><comment><USER25> This letter seems like it was hastily written and sent out in quite a hurry.

<comment><USER26> This might be off topic, but why create an account just to say this?

<comment><USER27> Everyone creates their account at some point, probably in order to respond to something...

<comment><USER28> I lurked for years both here and on reddit before creating an account. I finally created one when I wanted to say something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Now this is embarrasing

[https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1...](https://github.com/swituo/openbilibili-go- common/blob/8866d1359a2a501009b976b02bb27e4949cc4e77/app/admin/main/apm/dao/canal_test.go#L51)

<comment><USER30> It's a test file referencing a service running on local host ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why do you think that the DMCA would lead to some sort of deletion of repositories that was sent over a wire to a website that the DMCA was meant to be into?

It's not a simple case either. But it feels a bit strange that there aren't any links to this kind of DMCA takedown. It seems strange that a company like BitBucket would even have this kind of information without the DMCA notice.

Or maybe I'm just a cynic.</comment>


Dear Startups, Lobster is the new Comic Sans - <AUTHOR> http://5in5nyc.com/2012/05/31/dear-startups-lobster-is-the-new-comic-sans <comment><USER2> Oy. Comic Sans isn't problematic because everyone uses it, it's problematic because it's a bad font. The kerning alone is reason enough not to use it.

<http://www.kadavy.net/blog/posts/why-you-hate-comic-sans/>

By this author's logic we should all stop using Helvetica, too - it's way too common.

<comment><USER3> Lobster and Comic Sans are both highly stylized font-faces, Helvetica is not. It's okay for Helvetica to be common because it doesn't scream "Hey look at me, I'm Helvetica!"

When non-stylized things become very common, it's usually because they're good all around choices: their popularity advances the field. When extremely stylized things become very common, it typically leads to embarrassment down the road.

In music for example, it's now very common to have the drums in the center of the mix. This is the default because it makes sense. You only notice the panning of the drums when it's something else. In the eighties it became extremely common to use almost nothing but synths, and to have the snare drum drenched in reverb. You listen back to eighties material now, and _at best_ you appreciate the campiness of these things. Mostly they seem like a weird obsession that suddenly gripped the whole industry and warped everything to come out of it for a decade. The modern day equivalent of course is Autotune.

<comment><USER4> Grotesque sans were uncommon before the (say) 60s, and were very stylized for the time. You just don't notice that because we've been accustomed to them for so long, and because they are very effective for their purpose.

The parent comment is correct. Comic Sans isn't just stylized; it's a stylized face designed for a very particular purpose (as a stand-in for the hand lettering in comic books). And the problem with Comic Sans isn't that it's _overused_. It's that it's used in inappropriate places.

There is nothing wrong with making safe, popular choices in typefaces. Designers may gripe about how cliched Gotham is, but Gotham works. Comic Sans virtually never works. This post does not make a case that Lobster never works.

<comment><USER3> > Grotesque sans were uncommon before the (say) 60s, and were very stylized > for the time.

Source?

Wikipedia sayeth about Helvetica:

"The aim of the new design was to create a neutral typeface that had great clarity, no intrinsic meaning in its form, and could be used on a wide variety of signage."

There's a history of sans-serifs (with emphasis on grotesques) here [http://www.linotype.com/en/795/thesansseriftypefaces.html?PH...](http://www.linotype.com/en/795/thesansseriftypefaces.html?PHPSESSID=0641f83aea23fabe3c6f41f77198c82e) that seems to suggest they had caught on pretty well by the 20s.

<comment><USER4> Best I can do:

[http://www.freddesign.co.uk/2010/04/archive/the- differences-...](http://www.freddesign.co.uk/2010/04/archive/the-differences- between-akzidenz-univers-helvetica-and-arial/)

... which suggests that Akzidenz didn't come into modern use until the '50s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Lobster isn't bad, it's just overused at the moment. I might instead say that Lobster is the new Gotham, which has been overused as a header font since Obama used it in his 2008 presidential campaign (see [http://flip- design.blogspot.com/2011/01/gotham-most-overused...](http://flip- design.blogspot.com/2011/01/gotham-most-overused-best-font-in-world.html)).

<comment><USER6> Lobster is bad. Bello is bad. They're bad because they are ill-designed typefaces that leave much to be desired in the realm of readability and just the general aesthetic. They're display fonts that you can't compare to something like Gotham that can be used as display, headline or body.

Saying Gotham is overused is like saying Arial, Tahoma, Verdana are overused for web. If it is clean, visible at a distance and generic looking enough not to be annoying, it's hard to say it is overused, much like Helvetica.

Note: I say this as a designer that sees Lobster and Bello used (almost literally) hundreds of times a day in various capacities, a lot like Museo back in the day (yuck). Not sure if it is because they're Google fonts or if one startup used it and therefore every company had to use it, but in most situations they're the completely wrong type to use and when you see them, it's usually a sign of indolence/ignorance or lack of a real designer.

<comment><USER7> What you're saying is that Lobster, Bello, and Museo offend your sensibilities and are used frequently. That doesn't mean they are of poor quality. Bad choices? Maybe. Bad typeface designs? No.

<comment><USER6> Everything's subjective to a point, but when it doesn't scale and people are using them for tiny app logos and subheadings, sensibility has nothing to do with it. Not to mention these fonts are generally used in conjunction with some pretty terrible layer or CSS effects.

<comment><USER7> Agreed--in many of these cases, people need education about how to properly use display faces.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really don't understand this rant. Lobster is a title font, not a body font. Also unlike Comic Sans, it's actually pretty nice. The argument seems to be that Lobster is "overplayed" which is not only a snobbish, whiny thing to say but completely ignores the fact that Helvetica, Times New Roman, Arial, Georgia, etc. are used much more often. In fact you wouldn't notice Lobster at all except that it replaces the Arial you're used to seeing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ouch :)

My point is largely that Lobster has a much more defined and recognizable look than classic "Sans" fonts like Arial and Helvetica and "Serif" fonts like Times and Georgia.

The look is recognizable enough that it evokes comparison to other sites, which you may want to consider. It can also break down the fourth wall between your site and it's viewers if they recognize the font. They go "oh, that's lobster, one of google's free fonts" instead of "nice logo" which, again might not be what you're after.

<comment><USER4> Professional designers can spot Gotham instantly, and will make fun of you for using it in a logotype. The relevance of that to a web app developer is zero.

<comment><USER9> Why is Gotham a bad choice for logotypes?

<comment><USER4> It's not.

<comment><USER9> Ok, why would professional designers make fun of someone for using Gotham in a logo type?

<comment><USER4> Because it is very widely used.

<comment><USER9> That's a ridiculous reason to make fun of someone for!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Lobster may be an overused font of the moment, but it doesn't have the pedigree of Comic Sans. Not even close.

Once Lobster has shown up consistently on PTA meeting itineraries, junior high pep-rally announcements and yard-sale flyers for about 15 years then _maybe_ that font will be able to compare itself to Comic Sans.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'll throw in my two cents on the "Lobster is the new... XYZ" by chucking out Papyrus. They are both highly-stylized fonts that are fine on their own merits but highly overrused within a certain niche (Papyrus for anything supposedly 'holistic', Lobster for anything supposedly 'startup').

Now we just need an "Avatar"-sized hugely commercial startup to use Lobster to finally run it into the ground.

<comment><USER12> You mentioned Avatar, which chose Papyrus, narrowly missing Trajan the movie font -

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t87QKdOJNv8>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd compare Lobster more to Papyrus (<http://www.papyruswatch.com>) and Copperplate (<http://ihatecopperplate.blogspot.com/>) rather than Comic Sans.

</comment><comment><USER14> ... said the company with the awful trying-to-be-hip design.

<comment><USER15> Looks like the most simplest wordpress template to me. I'd appreciate any thought over no thought when it comes to design.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hahaha, touche. The 5in5NYC design needs some serious work :) It's absolutely on my todo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Comic Serif: <http://idsgn.org/posts/comic-sans-comic-serif/>

<comment><USER17> Nothing beats 'I hate comic sans': <http://www.dafont.com/i-hate-comic- sans.font>

</comment></comment><comment> jack-r-abbit _We will look back at our designs and sites years from now and go..._ "What happened to 90% of those sites?" :)

<comment><USER18> <http://www.killersites.com/killerSites/>

And yet, in its time, this was the shit.

Let's pour one out for the single-pixel GIF ...

<comment><USER19> Not to mention 'blockquote' for horizontal padding and hundred other dirty little tricks.

I couldn't help noticing, though, that the page loaded _wicked_ fast. Can't say I would mind it if more of the web was still that efficient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If anything, Lobster is the new FF Dax. Dax and its siblings were the popular startup branding typefaces a few years back.

And, Comic Sans is not a terrible typeface. It's just terrible for almost every application, except for comic book lettering.

Still, I fail to see why this is a problem. Design trends happen.

</comment><comment><USER20> Lobster is a nice, versatile, _trendy_ typeface. What's wrong with that?

<comment><USER21> Nothing at all, and there was nothing wrong with Comic Sans either. However it drives my friends who aspire to be designers into frothing fits of rage.

It was explained to me this way, "Chuck lets say that bubble sorts and bloom filters were these versatile algorithms that worked really well on a few things, but a bunch of cut-n-paste programmers started using them for every program they wrote, hello world with a bubble sort and a bloom filter, a temperature monitor with a bubble sort and a bloom filter, a file system with a bubble sort and a bloom filter, wouldn't it drive you NUTS?"

And I have to admit when I'm being honest with myself that folks who program 'cook book' style (which is to say they re-use code that kinda works and then bodge it into shape with a hack or two) do rub me the wrong way.

Apparently this is how designers feel about things like Comic Sans and the four box table layout and the any number of things that people do to put together web sites that the creator enjoys, but are not actually designed.

<comment><USER22> I think the larger point there is "does any of that matter"? I don't think it does. It's possible to be a lazy programmer and a lazy designer and still be entirely successful. Understandable that it irritates programmers and designers, but it's a fact of life.

<comment><AUTHOR> I completely agree :) There's a portion of this that is tongue in cheek, and I doubt we will actually change Framey (our own site which uses Lobster in the logo) at this point.

Really, I just wanted to raise it in people's consciousness so it's a consideration when you're choosing the font for your next project.

I think we're right at the threshold where powerusers (and tech blog authors) will start seeing Lobster and think "Ah. generic startup font. This was thrown together in a weekend."

Sometimes that's just fine, but it's not always what you want your wordmark to communicate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Comic Sans makes me remember I have a slight astigmatism.

Lobster makes me want to buy some soup, or order a la carte. Well, at least I don't cringe looking at it.

</comment><comment><USER24> The problem is its overuse, not it's qualities as a typeface. Comic Sans is not a bad typeface, it was merely overused and became a cliche. Lobster is well down that same path.

<comment><USER2> Comic Sans is a _terrible_ typeface. Frequency of use has nothing to do with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Lobster is a decent font however it's way, way overused. Just please for the love of god don't use it in your logo (Some YC companies have) at best it's going to look generic.

</comment><comment><USER26> In Vancouver (and most likely everywhere else) Bleeding Cowboy is smothering 'trendy' salons and other related signage.

Maybe it's time we have graphic design as a licensed trade.

</comment><comment><USER27> Pacifico is the new Lobster. <http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/pacifico>

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm so glad someone pointed this out, but it's horribly ironic that the design of the blog and the header on there are god-awful.

</comment><comment><USER29> Fuuuu now I'm seeing it everywhere. Thanks...

</comment><comment><USER30> It is a lot nicer to read than comic sans.

</comment><comment><USER31> Title should read: Dear Codecademy, Lobster is the new Comic Sans.

</comment><comment><USER32> I spent a minute before clicking that link trying to figure out wtf it meant.

All I could think of was how serving lobster to your employees is considered the new comic sans. An interesting world to think about, if I may say so.</comment>


The Google Logo in 884 4×6 Photographs - <AUTHOR> http://www.claybavor.com/?p=62 <comment><USER2> Did you know that the algorithm to generate photo-mosaics is patented?

</comment><comment><USER3> Too bad those two light sources weren't very well placed.</comment>


The Future of Mass/Public Transit (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/future-transit.html <comment><USER2> > Low cost (low to no subsidy needed.)

I've seen some estimates that all households in the USA, whether they have a car or not, subsidize roads a great deal.

This article is from 2010: [https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers- cover-just-51...](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover- just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/)

Admittedly, gas tax by definition does not apply to "solo electric robocars". If no other mechanism for paying for roads exists, then 100% of roads' costs are subsidized for robocars.

I have to conclude that this is more of that "fusion in 10 years", "in the future electricity will be too cheap to meter", "jetpacks!" sort of futurism.</comment>


One of the less horrible of the many dystopian futures visited by Time Traveller - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00855-2 <comment><USER2> WTF? In _Nature_?

Loved it, though.

<comment><USER3> 15 years ago I subscribed to Nature for a year. The last page of each issue was a short SF story. Some of them were really good.

<comment><USER4> Why only the one year? And what triggered the subscription at the time?

<comment><USER3> I do not remember what triggered the subscription. I stopped it because most articles were not of my interests and arxiv.org and other resources became the thing. But I did miss the short SF stories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This future sounds like a post-scarcity socialist society. I like it.</comment>


Ask HN: Alternatives to Bootstrap for non-front end devs? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for alternatives to Bootstrap that are as easy to use. Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> There are many:

1\. [https://materializecss.com](https://materializecss.com)

2\. [https://getuikit.com/](https://getuikit.com/)

3\. [https://semantic-ui.com/](https://semantic-ui.com/)

4\. [https://foundation.zurb.com/](https://foundation.zurb.com/)

5\. [https://bulma.io/](https://bulma.io/)

6\. [http://getskeleton.com/](http://getskeleton.com/)

7\. [https://purecss.io/](https://purecss.io/)

8\. [https://groundworkcss.github.io/](https://groundworkcss.github.io/)

9\. [https://cardinalcss.com/](https://cardinalcss.com/)

10\. [https://github.com/powertoweb/powertocss](https://github.com/powertoweb/powertocss)

and many others

</comment><comment><USER3> Try Tacit CSS [1]. No classes or special nesting to learn because it simply overrides the default look.

I use it on some side projects, plus a little more when I need it.

[https://yegor256.github.io/tacit/](https://yegor256.github.io/tacit/)</comment>