Hacking a Foreign Lawsuit: Project Gutenberg's Experience, and What It Means for You
4:55PM Jul 27, 2020
collection development policy
Hey, who's this next speaker, who's up
next. Wait a minute.
It's me. That's right you've seen me on the screen before as the interviewer as the emcee. And this is actually my talk, it's kind of fun. My name is Greg Newby. I've had a lot of involvement in the conference so far, but today I'm excited to bring you a story of something that I'm involved with personally, and let's just go ahead and roll the film it's not too short, and then we'll come back and have some questions and discussions about this whole thing with Project Gutenberg being sued in another country, as a small public charity. Let's get this a story. Hello, I'm Greg Newby thanks to the hope conference for having me join you here today. I'm going to tell the story about Project Gutenberg thought lost and learned from an international copyright lawsuit. Let's tell that story. For reference, and completeness. Here's the abstract, that I submitted for the talk. Let's not focus on that. Let's keep going. The main player in the story is Project Gutenberg Project Gutenberg is an online library of free ebooks, or electronic books. It is one of the oldest online content providers in the world, having started in 1971 Project Gutenberg mission is to encourage the creation and distribution of ebooks. New Project Gutenberg ebooks are based on published works that do not have United States copyright protection. These ebooks are selected and digitized by volunteers. You can find Project Gutenberg online at dub dub dub gutenberg.org. One of the other main players is me. I've been the Director and CEO of Project Gutenberg since the foundation that operates it was formed back around 2000. There I am on my dog sled enjoying some quality time with my four legged friends. I have a diverse background and a lot of interests, but today we're focused on Project Gutenberg with Project Gutenberg. I'm a volunteer. I manage other volunteers. I also take care of the many administrative details of the organization. The game plan for today's presentation is I'll first describe how Project Gutenberg selects new ebooks. I'll talk about the lawsuit, and the 18th ebooks that were the subject of the lawsuit. I'll describe what we did in response and spend some time talking about what we learned, and especially how our lessons might help you. But wait, I don't want to leave you hanging. Let's jump to the conclusion, the most important things for you are. Don't fight a lawsuit in a place that doesn't have jurisdiction over you.
we described the collection development process,
and the fact that volunteers select and digitize the books.
I didn't select these, I simply approved, that they were in the public domain, and therefore eligible for the Project Gutenberg collection. There are no flaws in our decision to digitize these 18 books. As I mentioned earlier, our procedures for copyright are exemplary. We also pointed out that the United States Constitution is guarantee of freedom of speech, means that we can do is we will with these public domain books. And that, to be quilled to be told that we cannot distribute these books is actually an infringement on our first amendment rights. We made other arguments as well. All of these arguments seem to fall on deaf ears. So what happened. Project Gutenberg lost the fight in the German court system. When we appealed, we lost the appeal. When we appeal, again to the higher court. We lost that as well. Interestingly though, the German courts specifically did not order, what the lawsuit asked for. They said the items did not need to be removed. They did not need to be impossible to reach from Germany. They just needed to be more difficult. In other words, we could use something like geo IP blocking rather than actually removing the books. The plaintiff said this was insufficient and they argued a lot that we had to remove the items entirely. So the German court agreed with us, that we didn't need to remove them. And yet they claimed that we had lost and ordered payment of court fees and finds Project Gutenberg is no longer accessible from firstname.lastname@example.org. We applied to geo IP block as the court requested. This wasn't because we agreed with jurisdiction or anything like that. It was so that we wouldn't antagonize the court during the appeals process. We're ready to remove the block, but we're also in settlement discussions with the plaintiff. One of the things we learned is there's something called enforcement of foreign money judgments. When a US plaintiff loses in an international court. If that international plaintiff wants the money to be paid they need to come to the US Court to get an order, where there actually is jurisdiction in the US. This would be the next step. If we don't reach a settlement discussion, and of course if we don't voluntarily pay the German court system for money judgments may not be enforced by us courts under a variety of circumstances. One of those is if the judgment is repugnant to the public policy. You can bet that we think that a foreign plaintiff, and a foreign court pursuing action against a small charity library. Due to its online activity is going to be found repugnant and unenforceable in the US court system. So let's sum up what we learned and what it might mean for you. Here's a summary of some of our lessons learned, and a few things we might have done differently. If we knew then what we know now. The main thing is that foreign courts do not have jurisdiction over Project Gutenberg. We did not need to show up in the German court, other than to point out this lack of jurisdiction. It was probably not necessary or even helpful to address matters of fact, and matters of law, which we work so hard on restating the jurisdiction issue would likely have been sufficient. I'd like to guide any organization in this situation, to make sure they get qualified legal advice, our German lawyers were very helpful in understanding the situation, they guided us through the German court system, and actually wrote a lot of our documents in German, even though we speak no German here, a Project Gutenberg. But it was the United States lawyers advice that was most relevant. It took a little while to find the right lawyers, not every firm has the needed international expertise. And of course important lesson learned that we learned through observation is there was definitely a home team advantage to the plaintiff in the German court. This was unduly favorable towards a German based plaintiff and the Court made decisions that we find to be erroneous. I've mentioned a few of these already the copyright demonstration was insufficient. The German presence is insufficient. The lack of evidence of any downloads was shockingly insufficient.
The German plaintiff was invited to court and given the opportunity to argue in person. I did not have that opportunity. So that's the story. Thank you for listening, and thank you to all the folks who have helped out Project Gutenberg. Most recently, and over the years. Project Gutenberg is grateful to our legal team. We received excellent pro bono legal advice from ropes and gray also fantastic interaction with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They see how important it is that small charity online organizations are not subject to international attack as occurred during this lawsuit. I also thank the board of directors of my foundation for support during this lawsuit, and many well wishers and even donors who expressed belief that Project Gutenberg mission is worthwhile. And that we need to stand against this German lawsuit to ensure that our mission is not endangered. Thank you.
And we're back. This is such a privilege to be part of hope, and I think people have seen me behind the scenes a few times at this point. And it's fantastic to get out on the stage. I was actually on the stage with Michael Hart, the founder of Project Gutenberg inventor of ebooks and 2006 that was that hope number five. And I got to give a quick description because I was asked about this of how I even got involved what my story is of getting involved with Project Gutenberg. I think you'll find it at least a little bit interesting. So I was a university student This was back in about 1987, I was at the State University of New York at Albany which is now called Albany University. And I got an email from my buddy, and he emailed me an electronic book, since 1986, the electronic book was the Millennium fulcrum edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. So all of a sudden in my inbox of the day in 1986 things were a little different than, but in my inbox I had an E book and I said, Wow, isn't this
cool, isn't this interesting,
and I didn't didn't know where it came from really just sort of arrived, but then subsequently I finished my master's went on to my PhD and went on to my first faculty position. That was at the University of Illinois in Urbana Champaign, Illinois. I was there for my first fall semester in 1991, this is ancient history point. And so a newspaper article. It was all about Michael Hart, he was holding up a CD, a compact disc which had a bunch of books on it turned out he lived in our band he lived in the same little city that I did he didn't work for the university, although he had an affiliation with the university. I called him up. I introduced myself, and it turned out that that were a couple of people at the university that we had in common. And you know people that we knew in common. So I got to know Michael and went to these Wednesday geek lunches in Urbana spent some time playing frisbee things like this this is in the early 90s, and basically sort of getting involved in Project Gutenberg I was helping create some books, my first book was number 52. We're up to number 60 almost 65,000 now first book was number 52.
You can look that one up. And, and subsequently got more involved with things like running the FTP server. Later on in Illinois I was running a service called prairie net a public computing network. And that was the host of Project Gutenberg for a little while, so we we work through a long multi year process and be getting involved as a volunteer and sort of a high end volunteer. And then when it was time to more formally create a corporation to operate Project Gutenberg rather than being sort of a, as a side project at these different universities. I was tapped as the chief executive officer, the CEO, so I got involved running this foundation which is the foundation that got sued in my, in my story that you just heard, and I was also I didn't mention this I was sued personally, there were two, two defendants names the Foundation, which I operate with a board of directors and some other people, but I'm the CEO and and myself personally were were named as defendants in this lawsuit, so on, so I've been the CEO since around the year 2000 in 2011, Michael died. This was sad occurrence you can look up on Wikipedia some of his own history and we have some articles on gutenberg.org, and since then I've really been the main guy taking care of the Project Gutenberg on Foundation, the part that does does little bit of formal paperwork we have some IRS paperwork that we have to do every year as a charity and, and also helping as a volunteer to run the various things that we do, that includes collection development, and that does include. And one of the people that do copyright clearances that determine whether something is good or not. So that's a little bit of my own personal history. I think the part that's fun is that I was learning about electronic books in 1986, I was fascinated it didn't occur to me I didn't invent this idea. Michael Hart invented this idea in 1971. Can you imagine, you know, some of us were alive and a lot of us weren't, but can you imagine how different the world was then there were no smartphones, there was no PC, the IBM PC was was invented years later on, even the, you know, Apple personal computer was decades in the future. He was on a mainframe using something called ARPANET the network of the day that connected, Illinois University to a bunch of other places, and decided that he wasn't going to be a programmer, oh he probably would have been a good one wasn't gonna be a programmer on, but had this access to computing, because of a personal connection to the University of Illinois Computing Center, and here's an idea, let's, let's take this declaration of independence printout that he got from a quickie Mart type of place on the Fourth of July, let's type this up, and then we'll send it we'll share it with all of our friends on the network of the day. And so that's what he did and that's how ebooks were born. So quite a, quite an inspirational story I think and it's a pleasure and a privilege for me to be involved so many years later, So I spent a few minutes. Now I thought maybe it would be interesting to tell my story and tell a little bit of the story of Project Gutenberg and there's an About Us page as you can imagine, dub dub dub dub gutenberg.org, which has a lot more details and interviews, things like that. I think what I'll do now is I'll turn it over to some questions and thanks to Tara for forgetting these and making them available. There's a question about whether we've been sued as Gutenberg of Australia, or one of the other affiliates. I don't know that Project Gutenberg of Australia had been sued I haven't heard about that. But we do have affiliate center and other countries and these are separate organizations basically what happened was Michael gave informal permission to other people to run their own good and Burks. And the idea here is that we didn't go into a lot of detail but literature is a national treasure, a national treasure. And here in the US that national treasure includes a whole bunch of things you can think of Tom Sawyer and Jane Austen and you know jack London and on and on. Each country has its own national treasures. And a lot of those just like in the US are in the public domain, and of course many of those are not in English. So, so other organizations have spun up that have focused on those and Project Gutenberg of Australia is one of those. And because copyright duration differs in different countries. For example, Australia, Canada has some things that are in the public domain in those countries but are not yet in the public domain. In the United States, that's a great way of. Also on evening the playing field, because if it's only the main Project Gutenberg in the US well there's things that we couldn't make available and we don't make available, simply because they're copyrighted here, but in other countries, it might be perfectly legitimate to do so on, we had a question that's sort of an interesting legalistic question you have books on your tablet, and you downloaded them in one country you visit Germany. Are you in contravention of German copyright law. And I think the short answer is, Who the heck knows, who knows. One of the things that I discovered here in this lawsuit is that in the United States, the basic notion of copyright violation is that an individual can violate someone else's Copyright by accessing storing redistributing copyrighted content, and we know all about this, we, we know that file sharing is is often an issue, you know, sharing software music, movies, all that sort of thing. What we found out was that as I understand it in Germany,
making something available,
not accessing that not using it, but making it available, can be considered to be a violation of copyright law, and of course in Project Gutenberg What do we do we make stuff available. Right, so we always said well you know if if someone in Germany is accessing your item that you own if you own the copyright to this Thomas man. Well, okay, so go and find that person and get them to stop, you know, block their internet find them, you know whatever educate them, you know, whatever it is that it takes to try to sell them your book, you know, but that's that's your problem because the violation, if any, is by the person that's accessing it, as I understand the German system, at least I don't know about other countries Europe and elsewhere. I'm simply making something available is a violation of copyright regardless of whether it's, whether it's access whether it's used, and so forth. So that's pretty interesting. Um, I realized before I before I take another question. I wanted to summarize, where we're at, because I actually had to redact a few of the slides and modify them a little bit, because this is still a story that's not completed yet. I thought it would be. I thought that we would be done by now, and it's been over five years pushing six years since the first lawsuit and a year or so before that, when we first heard from this from this company and we told them what I keep telling you in the presentation which is hey, we're in the US. If you want to see us come to the US, if you think there was issues with copyright violation find those violators in Germany because it's not us. So you know it's been a long time. We're getting close to the end, though the court arguments are done they're settled, as I mentioned, we were called the loser. But in fact, the court agreed with our premise all along which is we do not need to remove these books and damn sure we're not planning on removing those 18 books or any other books that are in the public domain. In the US,
we're kind of getting to the end or at the end of that court process and we're having discussions now with Fisher Verilog or lawyer to lawyer type of discussions to try to see if we can stop the fight before it comes to the US, because that's just not going to be all that pleasant if if it has to come to the US, especially we think for the other side. In the case of Project Gutenberg, we have some great friends I mentioned in my Thank you slide. We've had fantastic pro bono legal advice from ropes and gray thanks to Marta, and others on the staff there are ropes and gray, big, big law firm. And in addition, we've had a lot of great interaction from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and as I mentioned in the, in the movie, they see this basic concept, not so much the details of our lawsuit Germany and these particular authors but the basic concept of international copyright. For jurisdiction purposes and enforcement purposes, this is really important to the E FF and I just thank them so much for being in our in our corner. So anyway, the current status is that we're trying to resolve our differences, party to party, rather than having to take the next step being the US Court, and we'll see what happens. We'll try to update our website that I mentioned with with news when there is some has been moving much more slowly than we thought things would, but, but it seems that there's certainly a chance that the next step will be to the US court system and that's certainly where things will get pretty interesting because we'll have some some pretty powerful. Legal trends and legal advice on our side, and potentially on the other side we're looking at this international publishing industry which as you can imagine is a fairly powerful group of group of companies. So, essentially, I see, going to the US Court is at this point as a step towards escalation. And this is what I mentioned in my talk, had we done this. Five years ago and we not in started arguing about the facts of the case and all the things I mentioned, and simply said Look, you've got to come to the US where jurisdiction is is properly held, maybe we would have been in a different situation today than we are. Anyway statuses we're trying to try to work out the differences and we'll see what happens. Some people wonder about the block of gutenberg.org in Germany, I'll mention the technical technological implementation for this it's, we're just using mod security and geo IP to IP is one of these. Internet Protocol databases, so basically all that happens if you come into Gutenberg. org, the site gets your IP address finds out if it seems to be in Germany, and then redirects you to that block page in my, in my slides. We do know how to block individual books you know we're, we're fairly sophisticated technologically at Project Gutenberg. But, but when you have a foreign court, making decisions that are just completely repugnant and completely inconsistent with what we always thought to be the case for for how international copyright works. We decided that we wanted to get out of that business entirely and we blocked all of gutenberg.org from from Germany rather than just individual books, and that's a temporary situation that was well the lawsuit was being fought. We never agreed with the jurisdiction of the court we never agreed with the findings of the court. But what we didn't want to do was antagonize the court we didn't want to have the court saying okay we told you to do this to make these items unavailable. And, or at least inconvenient, not to remove them to make them inconvenient. And we can't listen to your appeal. you know, well, well, you haven't listened to us, right so we decided to go ahead sort of strategically. Anyway, we'll see what happens.
Later on, with that, I'm going to work through a few of these other questions here. Great, great questions. One of the ones that just came in is is basically talking about precedence. And this was fascinating to me and I mentioned in the slides, please please if you're ever in a situation like this. Do the best you can to get qualified legal advice, and I'm out there. If for some reason I might be helpful, you know, email me. Get in touch with ropes and gray with Marta, they're very informed about this international copyright is not something that you can get from your small town lawyer that works on you know your wills and your, you know property disputes with your neighbors and stuff like that it's a fairly specialized area. But what we found was to answer the question is what we found it there are very few precedents involved in international copyright, and there's a couple of reasons that precedents for us I should say there are copyright cases. But in our case it involves something that's in the public domain. In the United States, and copyrighted elsewhere. That's pretty obscure, that's something that we did not find a lot of direct precedents for now the Germans found a precedent that basically involves something that was copyrighted in both countries in Germany and Austria, and they said, Oh, you know, in that case, we were able to take action in the precedent case not Fisher garlic but a precedent case, we were able to take action against a foreign entity, because it was copyrighted there and it was copyrighted here, and we said yeah, that's not our situation, right, our situation is public domain in the US, owned by the American people and copyrighted out there in in another country now the US. Very few precedents in in that and really none that are directly applicable. So that's part of why I think e FF is involved and interested is, this would be a dangerous precedent if it came to the US, and was found in favor of the, you know, the German plaintiff in other words if the if the US Court were to elect to enforce the decisions of the German court on Project Gutenberg in the US and we would have to follow that that's, you know, that's what you got to do.
then that could open the floodgates
for all kinds of other organizations, including our good friends at the Internet Archive, including library projects like hathi Trust. I'm sure some of some people know these other projects, even projects like Google Books, where they're doing scanning. These rely on items being public domain. In some places, they also rely on something that is not as germane to the Project Gutenberg case here which is fair use. I'm not going to spend time describing fair use, you can look it up on your own, but that is a. Excuse me. That is a different, it's it's very applicable but it's different than what was a matter in the Gutenberg case we're talking about. So anyway, short answer is that we would be setting a precedent we hope it's going to be a good precedent, which is helpful for for other organizations well into the future. Um, let's see I have a few other questions in the chat here that'll. I'll try to work through. So, um, someone asked about finding Project Gutenberg books out there, so it's not so much about the case but just generally people find Project Gutenberg books out in the wild reselling on Amazon, print on demand. Maybe they're, they're making derivative work. And is that allowed. And the short answer is absolutely yes, there's two asterisks to two exceptions. One is that we do have some copyrighted work so for example we have a translation of Hermann Hesse's sidhartha very popular book, but the translator maintained copyright, it was a translation from a few years ago for a book which is in the public domain in German.
German again, it's in the
public domain in Germany or it's I mean it's a German book that's in the public domain in the US, and he made an English translation. So we have, I don't know, maybe 1000 or so, books that are copyrighted so those cannot be resold or they're still copyrighted the copyrights, owned by whoever whoever donated that book. But for the things that are in the public domain the other asterisk is that Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark so if you want to trade on Project Gutenberg. In other words, stay the Project Gutenberg book of Pride and Prejudice in your Amazon store, then you have to pay royalties, and there's a sort of a legal small print thing that you can find on the gutenberg.org site that describes the royalty schedule, but almost no one does that and, in fact, because what they can do, is they remove our name, they remove the trademark, they remove the header or the footer, remove that mention of Project Gutenberg and what's left. Right, exactly what's left is the stuff that's in the public domain. So if you have Pride and Prejudice. That's top of our Pride and Prejudice says this is a Project Gutenberg book or finding prejudice released on such and such a date here's the language character encoding, you read the book. And then at the bottom there's some small print this license that I talked about.
So get rid of the stuff
at the top get rid of the stuff at the bottom and what's left is in the public domain, and we do not own that.
The fact that we worked hard to
digitize it doesn't give us ownership over that. And that's something else that you can find on our site it's an interesting piece of research sweat of the brow labor does not create copyright. We've heard in some of our other talks things related to patents, ideas, which are potentially patentable or implementation of ideas or potentially patentable. Those don't get copyrights, What
is expression by authors. So the most famous case of that is five cell phone company, a rural telephone company versus face communications. And this is a case where the. Basically what was at issue was more or less a phone book, and the resulting judgment was that hey, you might have worked really hard on this directory of numbers and information you might have worked really, really hard, but you did not author it. You did not take ideas and decide how to express those, it's the expression of ideas, which is copyrighted, and you can read that as a phrase by the founders of the country in Article 11 of the US Constitution. So that's where copyright comes from. So, so, so sort of the longest side, side bar conversation there on what gets copyrighted and what doesn't. But when you have a reseller which is stripping out that stuff and selling Pride and Prejudice on Amazon. Great. We have no objection to it, we'd like to be cheap, we'd like it even better if it's free, but we don't own it. If they're doing that with the Project Gutenberg name and not paying royalties then they're violating our trademark and unfortunately that does happen, and I can tell you that Amazon is absolutely the worst offender for this partly because they are of course a monster they're a behemoth you know doing all kinds of things that we know about we even have some talks at hope about some of their activity, but also because they they don't really police their resellers very well, and sometimes. Barely if at all. So what that means is you have a, an individual somewhere that sets up an Amazon storefront grounds or if you will seals the Project Gutenberg items as is, you know, maybe takes, or epubs or HTML files, maybe makes them into a PDF, okay it's one of the brown. But, but then doesn't pay royalties. And what happens well you can guess what happens because when someone downloads that book maybe they paid 199, maybe they paid $12, they download that book, they open it up and it says this is a free
And it's a small print that goes into a lot of detail and why it's a free book, and who do they complain to me.
Right, or they email the help
desk or, you know, get us on social media, or something like that. So these. That's a whole separate presentation complaining about Amazon but luckily there's some other people that are doing complained about Amazon talk at the conference here. But anyway, the fact is that the, the reuse reselling making derivative works from public domain. Absolutely. Okay. Using the Project Gutenberg trademark without falling the license terms, not okay. And we do pursue those situations when they occur. But we encourage boy do we ever encourage giving stuff away, that's what that's what we're here for. We like to make stuff we like to give it away. Let's say we have a couple of other nice, nice questions. There's a question about new authors, or contemporary authors that might want to release their works for free on Project Gutenberg, and we have a site for self publishing it's called the Project Gutenberg self publishing portal. And it's that self.gutenberg.org se lF self toggenburg.org. Unfortunately that site is currently on an operative they had a back end failure on the front end works okay but they can't add your content. Hopefully that will be fixed soon and we will we will make it available. We had a question about question copyright. org I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that so I won't commented on it directly, I'll look later. But one thing that might be of interest is the Project Gutenberg collection development policy. And I think this is a little bit tangential but I'll mention it anyway. You can find the collection development policy at Gutenberg org under the How to section. Um, we worked really hard on this and it was only within the last year, we've ever had a collection development policy I don't know why, but, but we finally got it up and we work very closely with our excellent colleagues at distributed proofreaders distributed proofreaders is where most of our books come from. By the way, side note, volunteer help out dub dub dub.pg dp.net Project Gutenberg distributed proofreaders. This was a crowdsourcing idea that was from 2002, so it was a pretty early crowdsourcing idea, but that's where you can help proofread. Anyway, collection development policy, we subscribe to something called the freedom to read principle from the American Library Association FDR FDR freedom to read. Go and look at this stuff, you will love it if you're into Project Gutenberg you're into, you know, free books, free culture, the freedom to read was really helpful in our collection development policy, and what it said was all books, all expressions of ideas, must be made available. The fact that some of those are repugnant questionable dated racists you know all these complaints we know about this all this terrible literature. You know I used Uncle Tom's Cabin I use mine cough as examples on these all need to be available, because for them not to be available is worse, doesn't mean you need to enjoy them like them celebrate them, nothing like that. So, maybe it's a little like the Confederate statues where they might be available let's put them in a warehouse somewhere, you know, let's not celebrate them, but we don't want to forget that history that literature, so I very strongly recommend taking a look at that freedom to read principle under the collection development policy is very illuminating, I will try to look up the question copyright.org afterwards. We'll just take one or two other questions and we'll, we'll try to try to wrap up I really appreciate all this interaction and of course the interest in support in this in this lawsuit. So, there was a question, I think maybe we'll get back to the lawsuit just as last one or two questions how relevant is it that we don't have any downloaded records. Let me explain. Part of why we don't have download records the starting point is, to be clear, if you were in the US Court and saying hey someone's violated my copyrights, the judge would ask two questions.
At the very beginning. Number one is, who are you and what copyrights Do you own the copyrights in the German court system that was not adequately demonstrated it was partially demonstrated. After the lawsuit began. And it was inadequately demonstrated after three tries three appearances in court that the plaintiff was given the opportunity to, to make, and when it came down to was this error, someone that was a descendant of the author saying oh yeah it's okay in singing in German, I don't wanna try to do a German accent, but it's there this is a publisher we work with we we let them do what they want, right the paperwork trail was almost entirely absent on this. They added paperwork as the case. As the case proceeded. So in the US core they say what copyright Do you own it, and then they'd also say well have you been damaged, you know, what were you selling this and now you can't sell it. How much money did you lose that matters. How many downloads occurred in the German court it didn't matter. We said look we we are a library an online library, and like so many online libraries in the, in the United States. We don't keep download records. All Access is anonymous. The short answer of why that is, is our friend the Patriot Act, post 911 Act, which gave unlimited ability for law enforcement, government agencies to seize records and also made it possible through these national security letters to do it without even disclosing that they were seizing records. So long story short, we don't keep download records and we do not have them we don't know if anyone from Germany has downloaded these 18, ebooks, because we just don't keep those download logs, we use the patchy web server and standard. You know standard technologies which generate the logs, and we keep them for a short period, run some analysis so we have a nice little summary of number of downloads and stuff like that, and remove them permanently. So we cannot keep the count. Anyway, the German court just didn't seem to care is the short answer to that question. They didn't seem to care that there were no record of downloads, there is no evidence that anyone to download. They didn't all care about whether the plaintiff had suffered any loss. You know, like in a regular sort of legal situation so what's your loss you know if you, if you were selling $10,000 last year, and now you're selling only $5,000 and maybe it's because of you know someone distributing your book, but we don't even know if they're selling these things in Germany, let alone anywhere else. Um, so, so anyway that's that's the that's the interesting situation differences between the US and, and Germany, and we didn't get to learn a fair amount about US law but you know I'm not a lawyer I didn't say that at the beginning it's pretty obvious I'm not a lawyer we're getting some good legal advice. But also, as I said, it's important to note that this is not a mainstream situation that we're dealing with here it's a, you know, a filter, relatively obscure area, you know, copyright in one country public domain the other country, what really matters and the takeaway for me is what's up with a with a big international publisher bullying, my small public charity from a continent away on something that I'm doing which is perfectly legal, where I am. And, from my point of view of course perfectly wonderful, you know, very much. Publicly facing and publicly benefiting activity. So we'll leave it at that we're at the end of my presentation we have an exciting keynote. Coming up next. Thank you. Thank you for your support for listening for your questions. It's been a pleasure. I'm so happy to be part of hope
and let's call it a day for now. Thank you again.