But... That is factually incorrect. It's German copyright law, not US, that applies to Germany. Berne convention does not extend any law beyond a country's borders. It merely stats that in each country, said country's copyright laws will apply to any work worldwide. Therefore this case has nothing to do with US copyright or copyright laws as due to Berne convention WoW has German copyright (indeed, near worldwide copyright) and it is due to be tried before a German court by German laws.
Look at the first post that I replied to about the copyright laws. It seems as though wowstargate was saying that Blizzard has no grounds in Germany. I replied with, "two words berne convention", merely implying that blizzard (U.S.) does have grounds to sue for copyright infringement in Germany. I mean, that's what all this is about right? Whether or not Blizzard can sue someone from Germany for copyright infringement? It doesn't matter that US copyright laws don't apply in Germany. All that matters is that the US, or someone from the US, is allowed to sue in Germany. You replied with "two words: so what?..." Since you want to get all technical and sophisticated with all of this, you dismissed me when I mentioned the Berne Convention. However, the Berne Convention is the sole reason that Blizzard is allowed to sue someone in Germany. I think this counts as a big 'what' instead of a 'so what'. I figured you could use context clues and your "1337" deductive skills to read between the lines, and figure out that I was only using the Berne Convention to prove that Blizzard does have grounds to sue in Germany, regardless of how literal the previous post might have been with regards to U.S. copyright laws. You see, I read between the lines, and assumed that wowstargate was making a claim that Blizzard does not have rights to sue in Germany.
I realize this post might be a little redundant, but that's only because I wanted to make sure you understand with clarity where I'm coming from. I don't want to leave any gaps for you to become confused and pick apart my post. I know you're trying real hard to seem smart with all of your 'clarifications', but they're really not necessary. How about next time, before cluttering up a post by dissecting each and every word someone has used and trying to come off as sophisticated, think about what the person might have meant.
All you've really clarified is that you enjoy trying to pick apart someone's words on the internet in a futile attempt to make yourself seem more knowledgeable than you really are. I appreciate your clarity on the already clarified Wikipedia article regarding the Berne Convention.
Seventeen words: Blizzard does have grounds to sue anyone in Germany for copyright infringement due to the Berne Convention.
Thanks again for all of your efforts HB.
First, let me clarify as to why the Berne Convention is more than "remotely applicable to this case." The Berne Convention is what gives the United States, or someone from the United States, ground to sue someone in another country for copyright infringement.
"Copyright protection rules are fairly similar worldwide, due to several international copyright treaties, the most important of which is the Berne Convention. Under this treaty, all member countries -- and there are more than 100, including virtually all industrialized nations -- must afford copyright protection to authors who are nationals of any member country. This protection must last for at least the life of the author plus 50 years, and must be automatic without the need for the author to take any legal steps to preserve the copyright.
In addition to the Berne Convention, the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) treaty contains a number of provisions that affect copyright protection in signatory countries. Together, the Berne Copyright Convention and the GATT treaty allow U.S. authors to enforce their copyrights in most industrialized nations, and allow the nationals of those nations to enforce their copyrights in the U.S."
Source:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu