>Actually the berne convention gives you right to sue in the jurisdiction where your rights are being violated.

I don't get it, is your claim that the rightsholders can sue in German courts and get an injunction if they want sites blocked, or that site blocks shouldn't be needed at all because suing people (but not blocking the sites) is an adequate remedy for infringement?

> Tools exist for them to enforce them by going after the domain registrar or hosting provider.

What if the domain registrar or hosting provider is in another country? If some Chinese company is infringing on some German company's IP, is your response to tell them to sue them in China, rather than have the goods be blocked at the border?

>Given there is some sort of fair use in most jurisidictions, and its compeltly with in even europeans rights to save entire movies for personal use, the parent comment to you is right.

Unless there's some context that's missing from the article, the sites being blocked seems like they're straightforwardly committing copyright infringement. It's not like youtube-dl is being taken down or whatever. "movie streaming sites are fine because there's a tiny chance that it's used by someone who already owns the movie" seems like a flimsy excuse to allow such sites to continue operating.

▲

nadermx 2 days ago | parent [-]

>I don't get it, is your claim that the rightsholders can sue in German courts and get an injunction if they want sites blocked, or that site blocks shouldn't be needed at all because suing people (but not blocking the sites) is an adequate remedy for infringement?

Yet your own response seems to imply you do get it?

>What if the domain registrar or hosting provider is in another country? If some Chinese company is infringing on some German company's IP, is your response to tell them to sue them in China, rather than have the goods be blocked at the border?

Correct. As the infrigment is happening in China, not in Germany. Just because you don't like the way a law works, doesn't mean you can suddenly claim your rights are being violated some where else.

>Unless there's some context that's missing from the article, the sites being blocked seems like they're straightforwardly committing copyright infringement. It's not like youtube-dl is being taken down or whatever. "movie streaming sites are fine because there's a tiny chance that it's used by someone who already owns the movie" seems like a flimsy excuse to allow such sites to continue operating.

Yes because a tiny chance of innocence should be completely ignored according to your logic, and given that copyright infringement carries criminal penalties and prison. I hope it's not you who ends up in that situation.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

>Yet your own response seems to imply you do get it?

So which one is it?

>Correct. As the infrigment is happening in China, not in Germany. Just because you don't like the way a law works, doesn't mean you can suddenly claim your rights are being violated some where else.

Yet, in most countries you can get an injunction (ie. a "block") for infringing goods produced abroad to be seized at the border. It's within the government's remit to regulate what happens within its own borders, even if the infringing product (or website) is outside its borders.

>Yes because a tiny chance of innocence should be completely ignored according to your logic, and given that these carry criminal penalties and prison. I hope it's not you who ends up in that situation.

Where did "criminal penalties and prison" come from? We're talking about sites that are obviously engaging in copyright infringement. I'm not sure how you went from that to "send everyone with an open plex server to the gulag".

	▲	nadermx a day ago \| parent [-]
		> the sites being blocked seems like they're straightforwardly committing copyright infringement. It's not like youtube-dl is being taken down or whatever. > Where did "criminal penalties and prison" come from? https://torrentfreak.com/tag/yout/; YMMV