> 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.
That's an extraordinary theory of international law. By that logic Austria and Namibia also have jurisdiction.
So no, not an extraordinary or new theory of international law.
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.
Even without speakers, Gutenberg hosting these books does not mean they are targeting Germans. I can put any of these texts through Google translate and read them myself despite my only experience with German being one class in high school.
There's a difference between theoretical plausible deniability, and practical plausible deniability. This excuse falls in the first category, accompanied by other colourful excuses like "I didn't steal that, someone must've slipped it into my pocket and I didn't notice". Theoretically possible, but ultimately implausible and completely dismissible unless you've got proof to back it up.
This sort of "remote jurisdiction" is necessary. Otherwise the only recourse to criminal foreign sites targeting your country will be to endlessly try to block it, while blocks are cheap and easy to evade.
The GDPR rests on the same principle of remote jurisdiction. If your website targets EU citizens, you have to abide by EU privacy rules.
"Hierfür spricht, dass die Webseite teilweise in Deutsch gehalten ist, dass auf der Seite Werke in deutscher Sprache angeboten werden [...]"
And there are even more arguments by the prosecutor which go beyond "accessible from Germany".