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

Can't say I blame them for either reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure that ISPs could block particular URLs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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