"Aside from" means "except for"... He said that most of them don't attempt to convert people's religion (proselytism) with Jehovah's witnesses being the exception.
Liking it or not you do have legal or economic presence when you accept people in Germany to visit your site (e.g at first more than a few American websites simply blocked all EU traffic after GDPR was approved), and if you keep violating the local law after being requested to cooperate, they will fine, emit arrest requests and sure enough if deemed necessary also block your website temporarily/permanently, in other words they will do what they would do in any other case even if the full application of the law is less effective because you are not physically there (or have any interest to be) to personally see a big difference in your quality of life.
Then block the website. It's not my responsibility to bring my website into compliance with the laws of all 200 countries in the world and the laws of the jurisdictions within them. Because of VPNs, it's impossible to tell which users belong to which countries (and even without it, geo IP isn't that reliable).
> e.g at first more than a few American websites simply blocked all EU traffic after GDPR was approved
Those websites have parent companies who have an economic presence in the EU.
Or they didn't have a parent company with even more economic presence than just them (serving American-centric news with ads), but they would like to have that path still easily open in the future, after all its a big market and... that's the point. Off course you can literally ignore all legal requests for compliance from all foregein countries until they do the worst that they can legally do to you which isn't much if you truly have no particularly strong personal or business related interest in them (lose users that you didn't care to have in the first place, cut a travel destination off your list because if you show up you can be held in prison for not paying a fine... Or whatever), but telegram is not you and apparently they care about being able to continue do business there (allowing people in Germany to use the chat app), so not complying is not a option.
"Should" has no place in what I'm trying to explain to you. I have never said laws are always fair or anything like it. The point is that you can't have your cake and eat it too, by saying "but my servers are in the usa, just like the physical office", "but it is truly impossible to stop every German user to use my site" and stuff like that you will only sound extremely naive, what they (you or anybody) can do is ignore the request to comply with foregein law and suffer the consequences (be blocked there and/or several others) or comply with the foreign law and that doesn't mean necessarily removing the content (focusing in this case), they can opt to make a honest attempt at blocking Germany users from using the app (leave the German market).
If the consequence is blocking, that's completely acceptable. If the consequence is that I have to comply with the laws of 200 jurisdictions and probably more or otherwise get arrested if I step foot on their soil (or pass through their airspace), that's completely unacceptable.
Well you always have the option of not doing business in 200 countries, just because the internet made that easier it doesn't mean you must... About consequences for completely ignoring the courts that will depend on what exactly you are being accused of facilitating/doing, who's accusing you... Just as usual.
That is asinine. It's not 'doing business' in 200 countries just because I haven't blocked my website everywhere outside of America.
If somebody breaks German law, that's their problem, and this is the convention for matters outside of the Internet, too. US CBP, for instance, doesn't hold the seller responsible for complying with import laws and duties, that's the responsibility of the importer. That's because it would be enormously complex to figure out the laws of every place someone is meant to sell to, whereas the buyer only needs to know the laws of where they live.
Really? I don't think so, your example doesn't even seem particularly good, the importer is the one operating in two countries and that should know what he can legally buy in one and bring to the other, this is not a particularly new concept, in the same way I don't believe telegram itself would get in trouble if someone from another country entered Germany with the app installed in their phone.
Yes, this is really so. I can even confirm this is the case in Europe, as I once lived in the EU and paid import duties myself on something I imported from America.
In the case of Project Gutenberg and Telegram, the German side is the consumer, so it's entirely comparable. If the app or website is illegal in Germany, Germans who use it are the ones breaking the law here.
If I sell chocolates in America, and somebody in Germany where I have zero presence buys them, I should not expect to get arrested if I step foot on German soil because I used an ingredient banned in Germany. If I run a blog in America, and somebody in Germany comments 'Heil Hitler', I should not expect to get arrested if I have a layover flight in Berlin because I didn't delete that comment. To say otherwise is absolutely deranged. Germany can sieze my chocolates in customs - that's fine. They can block my blog - that's also fine. Your implications here are in utter contradiction to existing international law concerning the import and export of goods.
I challenge you to consider how it could be any other way - if the onus is on the other side, why stop at the website operator for not blocking Germans from their site? Is the host not also responsible? The ISP? Should FedEx be responsible for not inspecting their packages for illegal chocolates?
You you didn't understand and I would like to try again, put bluntly: things don't teleport or cross borders by themselves, so someone is always operating in mutiple jurisdictions and can be prosecuted in more the one, traditionally for physical goods it's usually the importer who buys stuff in a place (and can be prosecuted for that if it's something illegal to buy in the origin country), and sell it in another (and can be prosecuted for that if it's something illegal to sell/own/eat/whatever in the destination country), off course the original seller in the origin country or the final buyer in the destination country can also be prosecuted in theirs respectively jurisdictions as well... Now for some online services like chat apps and whatnot there's no such middle man, people in Germany are only able to use telegram because telegram is directly providing the service for them, so if keeping some text online/acessible to people in Germany is illegal the government will go after the person/group responsible for that, in this case telegram to fine/whatever, they even usually provide guidance in cases like this (like "hey providing this kinda stuff over here is illegal, fix your service - delete the content, make it not available to people here/etc - before we have to go to court"), if writing such text is also illegal whoever did it is also in trouble.
> Now for some online services like chat apps and whatnot there's no such middle man
There are plenty of middlemen. There are the hosting services. There are the ISPs. There are the CDNs. If you're going to make Telegram legally liable for these matters, then why not AWS, ISPs, and CDNs?
I can't reply the other one but you truly are grasping for straws, in your exemple you coud get convicted in the origin country if buying was illegal, for importing and for owing/using it in the destination country if those were offences. That's exactly what is going on here, there's no middle man providing the telegram service for people in Germany so if hosting/providing that service is illegal (because telegram allows pro-nazi stuff or whatever) who else but telegram will be held responsible? They are the ones operating in Germany providing the chat/group message thing, if there were a middleman (like it happens with games in some cases) the court would be talking to them, just like happens (traditionally) with importers.
If Telegram is illegal to use in Germany and it has no presence in Germany, its users in Germany are the ones breaking the law. To act as if Telegram faces criminal liability for simply not blocking Germany is as asinine as acting as if an exporter faces criminal liability in the destination country when they have zero presence there.
The middle man I'm talking about is the one operating in mutiple jurisdictions, so that the "true" seller or buyer doesn't have to (like a importer usually works, buy stuff in a place and brings it to another), what you are talking about is like the shipping company, storage facility owner that rents it out to the importer and stuff like that and those people do get in trouble if they try to get in the middle of the investigation (it would be the same if eg aws did not comply with a judge order of providing the name of who is operating a site so they can get a notice about the illegal stuff they are hosting/providing to users in Germany).
I wasn't the middleman when I imported the product. I was the end user. I have also imported products into the US where I was the end user. Complying with American law and European law was my responsibility in both cases, not that of the seller.
And that's the thing by definition it is literally impossible to be an exporter to country X without operating there. In the same way it is literally impossible to claim that telegram is not providing a service for people in Germany if people in Germany a literally using the service as provided by telegram. You want to have our cake and eat it too, the world simply doesn't work like that.
The way import/export laws work, it's the onus of the importer to comply with the law. I don't understand why you expect a completely different set of rules to be reasonable just because the Internet is involved.
That is more or less what Arch Linux does. There are oficial repos (core and extra) maintained by Arch Linux developers, an unsupported packages collection (AUR) where anyone can upload a package recipe and an intermediary between those two called community repository that is mantained by trusted users.
The options truly are just those two in my country if I want to open a bank account, buy stocks and etc, so I expected less sketchy crypto exchanges, payment/crypto acc and etc to implement the same mechanisms because otherwise it is very likely that they are simply not following my local laws and are enabling money laundering, tax evasion and other criminal activities to gain market share. The only thing that is a bit different is that if you physically go to branch they will only record your id and address (they don't need a recorded video of you saying the bank name or similar to verify that those documents belong to you).
> it is very likely that they are simply not following my local laws
Places outside of your local jurisdiction are not beholden to your laws.
Also, even you have a third option, which is to just not open a bank account. So again, it's a false dichotomy. Not to mention you could move somewhere that allows non-KYC banking. There are definitely more options than you let on.
What you said is false, if they are operating in my country (and that is true if they are opening accounts/etc to people in my country) they must comply, it doesn't matter that the server is located in another country or anything like that. About the second point sure if they are not operating from a country that requires id identification and are only dealing with clients from places like that it is true, otherwise they will get in trouble, it is just a matter of time (if I'm not mistaken there are even examples of less dumb crypto exchanges creating multiple entities in multiple countries with slightly different urls so that they can have it both ways).
You are indeed entitled to simply reprint or republish someone else’s work for profit if it is in the public domain. Copyright blocks most derivative work (with a few exceptionns like parodies), but also blocks verbatim unauthorized copies.
> Copyright blocks most derivative work (with a few exceptionns like parodies), but also blocks verbatim unauthorized copies.
Maybe verbatim unauthorized copies is all it should block? Hey, it's right there in the name, isn't it -- Copyright? It's not called "parodyright" or "derivativeright"...
Translations, revised editions (to fix typos, add examples or change the bookcover) and adaptations to other media formats are examples of derivative works, so copyright law would be pretty useless without that kind of protection.
He already gave some examples but to expand a little bit I was moving from a place to another 1km way (at most 10 minutes driving accounting traffic) and needed to hire someone with a small truck, I was able to find bigger companies on google but needed nothing of what they were offering even a small pickup truck would suffice my needs and the only place I got what I wanted was on Facebook (marketplace).
I don't know about France but in my country that's also factored in the law and hiring offers except for jobs that are on managerial level (them the law says you don't have clock in but you also pretty much don't get to clock out and you mostly get paid well for that), which doesn't apply for developers and that means you get paid less if there is no "on call". Basically your base pay is the same on company A and company B (assuming they are truly equal), but since company B requires "on call" that is extra work that gets compensated based on your hourly rate or double that if it is during night time, in the same way for the same job in the same company who ever works night shifts get paid twice as much as the daily shift (before taxes).
I also got interested, there's a link to the github page near the bottom of the site: server is source available, commercial use is only allowed to co-ops and a few other entities, the client is opensource (MIT license).
Based on what I've read it is more or less the same model we have in my country. Employment contracts are either fixed or indefinite term contracts, you can't renew fixed term contracts indefinitely and they are used in specific situations, one of them being to assess or test someone's abilities before offering an indefinite term contract, so 3 months is a short term but not really in the sense that your new employee doesn't necessarily needs to master the job in 3 months, you just need believe or see that they are learning and being as good as other hires in that amount of time.
I agree with you in my area it replaces some FB groups for long distance drives/hitchhiking (a hour or more of driving is not unusual), but not taxis/uber, because the driver sets a price, when they will arrive and where they will meet/drop you (usually a gas station), it is also generally true that it is just gas money (cheaper than a uber fare of the same distance). There is a uber-like service where the passenger makes a fare offer and if I'm not mistaken the driver can make a counter offer, it is called indriver, but I don't know if it exists there.
