In Germany?! Never! /s
This reminds me how the gyms in Germany were told by the government they were not allowed to collect membership fees during the lockdown but the big chains did it anyway on the basis of "what are you gonna do about it?". So if you wanted gyms to comply, each customer had to take their gym to court on an individual basis but most never bothered.
It's crazy, from a foreigner's perspective, with how much shenanigans big business in Germany can get away with legally, considering how strict and bureaucratic Germany is. And don't get me started on customer service.
Eventually they'll sue you for damages, the court will rule that you have to stop what you are doing (as they already did so, and violating a court order seems like a surefire way to escalate the situation), plus the monetary compensation for the damages. And at that point it's just easy-peasy call the collections agency, and they'll just make your life more and more miserable by taking your stuff/car/home/etc. (Similarly if "you are" a company.)
https://www.reuters.com/article/swisscom-court-idUSFWN20M0KT
The problem is that we're the only ones with standing to challenge the Hamburg injunction, so if we don't, they can use it against anyone in the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project#WJP_Rule...
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRn4xzaugbk [1] nor for long :(
You probably could ask EFF for help in this case.
I remember "the good old web" (tm) where people did stuff anonymosly. In this way people can stay safe and continue publishing stuff.
See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressumspflicht#Telemedienge...
Source: I'm a German, I publish websites.
Source: I am also a German, I publish .com websites.
Interestingly, you only have to do it IF you have an online presence. As in, you don't have to have an online presence when running a business.
I think the point here is to not disclose your identity online as a defense against bullshit lawsuits. Whether you agree with the approach itself is one thing, but if it works at protecting against lawsuits it'll definitely work at protecting against enforcement of this law.
Furthermore, when it comes to the lack of "impressum", merely determining whether the law has been broken would be difficult with proper anonymity. Let's say he's based in Germany but anonymously purchases hosting in the US or another country and never discloses his German residency on the website - in this case it's impossible from the outside to even determine whether he is actually breaking this law, removing the probable cause for an investigation in the first place. As far as I'm aware, Germany does not - and wouldn't have the resources anyway - to thoroughly investigate every foreign-hosted website to determine whether its owner is actually based in Germany and is thus breaking the law by not publishing an "impressum".
Honestly, if the world was run by such people, we would be still in discussions and evaluations.
Sometimes you just have to accept facts and move on.
Hamburg is a favourite for such cases because they just have no clue about technology. They are just old fashioned.
As a small indie developer, I could not afford to keep on fighting. I gave up. I was a psychological wreck. And since it is not binding, big entities can afford to sue you non-stop.
Hamburg was the second time I was in a court. I got sued by the same big corporation. I won the first one.
Despite not being binding Sony will use this as a precedent and they will start going against the bigger DNS players, till all of them have to comply with their demands.