Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU Publishers Want a Law To Control Online News

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the protect-yourself-right-out-of-the-market dept.

The Internet 168

suraj.sun writes with news that European publishers are also seeking ways to "protect" their content from the big bad intertubes. Their rant, termed the "Hamburg Declaration," asks the government to step in with a legislative fix. "Most of the statements in the relatively short declaration, which will surely take its place among thousands of other European declarations on intellectual property and other matters that have come out over the past few years, hinge on the idea that 'universal access to news' does not equal 'free.' In this respect, the publishers want to maintain the democratic ideal of a 'fourth estate' that provides news to an informed citizenry, while simultaneously restricting access to that news to those who can pay for it directly. What sets this declaration apart from the other Hamburg declarations out there, or from the various Geneva declarations or Berlin declarations, is that this one is intended to give the publishers' favorite solution to the news-stealing problem, the Automated Content Access Protocol, the force of law."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This won't Work (5, Insightful)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683769)

people will gravitate towards free. If they go pay... people will just go elsewhere its simple as that, law or no law.

Help me Rob Malda you're my only hope! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28683885)

Help me Slashdot! Me and Steve Jobs were jacking each other off while we dildoed each others' asses with our iPhone 3Gs. Mine got stuck up my ass after I came and then Steve ran out on me! I've been trying to call him to come help me but he won't return my calls. What do I do?!?!!? I'm so scared...

Re:Help me Rob Malda you're my only hope! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28684043)

Me and Steve Jobs were jacking each other off, and then suddenly we accidentally the iPhone 3G S, the whole thing! is this bad?

Re:Help me Rob Malda you're my only hope! (3, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684329)

Help me Slashdot! Me and Steve Jobs were jacking each other off

Disgraceful. It should be "Steve Jobs and I".

Re:Help me Rob Malda you're my only hope! (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685265)

Disgraceful. It should be "Steve Jobs and I".

Jealous?

Re:Help me Rob Malda you're my only hope! (0, Troll)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684515)

Help me Slashdot! Me and Steve Jobs were jacking each other off while we dildoed each others' asses with our iPhone 3Gs. Mine got stuck up my ass after I came and then Steve ran out on me! I've been trying to call him to come help me but he won't return my calls. What do I do?!?!!? I'm so scared...

How the hell do you make a call while the iPhail is STUCK UP YOUR ASS?

Is this some kind of super-butt-dialing?

Re:This won't Work (5, Insightful)

RDW (41497) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684467)

'people will gravitate towards free. If they go pay... people will just go elsewhere its simple as that, law or no law.'

Well, I think we should at least consider the terms of their proposal carefully. Check out the full text below:

"Hamburg Declaration regarding intellectual property rights

The Internet offers immense opportunities to professional journalism - but only if the basis for profitability remains secure throughout the digital channels of distribution. This is currently [ERROR! ACAP VIOLATION IN PROGRESS! YOU HAVE EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CHARACTERS ALLOCATED TO THIS NEWS AGGREGATOR! PLEASE DEPOSIT EUR 50 TO READ THE NEXT 100 WORDS OF THIS ARTICLE!]"

If you don't want it indexed, then either (4, Insightful)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683795)

1. Don't put it on the web
2. Learn how to use robots.txt

Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684021)

You misunderstand their argument. Of course they want it indexed, just look at how many thousands of people look at their news everyday that wouldn't if it weren't indexed. They desperately want that readership... to pay them for the service. They aren't saying "we don't want people to read us", they're saying "we want everyone who reads us to pay for it".

Saying robots.txt is like telling a hungry 2 year old that they can't have a Popsicle and should go eat a green beans instead. Yeah, the green beans will make them not hungry, but it's the damn Popsicle that they want (incidentally, you'll get about the same response from either group).

Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either (3, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684141)

Saying robots.txt is like telling a hungry 2 year old that they can't have a Popsicle and should go eat a green beans instead.

In many parts of Asia, green bean popsicles are popular with all ages. Where is your god now?

Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684275)

In many parts of Asia, green bean popsicles are popular with all ages. Where is your god now?

Asia is already full of copyright scofflaws and I forsee a huge business opportunity for whatever Asian country is willing to host search engines and tell the publishing industry to go fuck themselves.

Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685633)

Where is your god now?

Right behind you.

Search engine retaliation (5, Interesting)

zogger (617870) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684609)

The big dogs like google could start charging these guys to index their precious. I wish they would have done something like that rather than cave into AP, etc, for just quoting little snippets to have *something* to show where this news link was coming from. Do it on a case by case basis, the various news websites want their news paywall to be indexed, they should pay for that professional servgice, if they don't throw up a paywall, then they get indexed for free, like today. Ball is in the news orgs court then when it comes to what they think things are worth or not.

I have mixed feelings about google, but sometimes I think they are too nice and cave in too readily. It can't be that much fun to be the biggest of the big dogs and not get to bite some ass once in awhile.

Re:Search engine retaliation (1)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684681)

google do charge you for indexing your "precious".

you have to pay a small fortune for the "pizza box" thingy that sits on your network, supposedly indexing, but rarely working properly and requiring you to set your infrastructure to how the google box thinks it should be and not configuring the google box to work with your network how you wanted it...

if you ask me, they are better off hiring a coder to make their own site indexing, get it exactly how they want it and having the whole system evolve over time.

but you didn't ask me, so just keep paying a small fortune for the stupid google "pizza boxes"...

Re:Search engine retaliation (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684751)

Perhaps you should try an actual pizza box instead

Re:Search engine retaliation (1)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684973)

would certainly give you a lot less stress and a lot more satisfaction...

not so sure about its indexing properties though...

to badly paraphrase... "no-one ever got fired for buying google."

Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685071)

" they're saying "we want everyone who reads us to pay for it"."

The problem is no one wants to pay them, i.e. there is no market for it anymore because of the internet.

I find it humorous that people chant "Free market" and "choice for the consumer" but suddenly backtrack into collectivism under the rubric of property rights, trying to enforce something on people that the clearly do not want by manufacturing artificial monopolies (laws), even if the law won't have any it still shows how ridiculous people are.

Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either (2, Insightful)

Beetle B. (516615) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685273)

You misunderstand their argument. Of course they want it indexed, just look at how many thousands of people look at their news everyday that wouldn't if it weren't indexed. They desperately want that readership... to pay them for the service. They aren't saying "we don't want people to read us", they're saying "we want everyone who reads us to pay for it".

Not sure why they can't do this.

Just post indexing info and excerpts for free, and put the rest behind a pay-wall. Google News will still carry it, and everyone (except readers like me) will be happy.

Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684111)

FYI, robots.txt can be ignored by anything that chooses to ignore it. In fact, many web crawlers have caused problems because of this. If directory "huge_downloads_in_here" is marked to disallow, it's annoying when a web crawler starts downloading everything in there 10 times per day.

Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684569)

But the biggest search engines follow it, and that's what's important.

Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684865)

Robots text? Strange, I would have thought they use radio.

What garbage (3, Insightful)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683797)

I hope Obama doesn't buy into this stuff. The "fourth estate" has enough clout already.

Re:What garbage (0, Offtopic)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683865)

yes, the "fourth estate" and all its power worked so well at forcing the last administration to change its unpopular policies, uncover lies and corruption, prosecute wrong-doers in the white house, etc...

oh... wait...

Re:What garbage (1, Flamebait)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683965)

And it's doing even worse at all those things in relation to the current one. The current regime went from zero to corrupt in a time span that would make even Dick Cheney's head spin.

Re:What garbage (0, Troll)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684003)

really???? worse than bush???

cough, cough... ENRON... cough...

Re:What garbage (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684063)

Bush didn't appoint a ton of "czars" that were accountable to no one. Yes, the Bush administration had a lot of flaws, but Obama'a administration looks to be expanding on them.

Re:What garbage (1, Troll)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684133)

millions needlessly dead, war over large parts of the planet, mass alienation and destabilisation, worldwide economic collapse...

i don't think any politician at all is "good", but you'll have to get up pretty early each morning and put in some very long hours to be actually WORSE than bush...

Re:What garbage (3, Informative)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684225)

millions needlessly dead

Millions? Really? Even the most outlying figures for the death tolls have never been in the millions.

war over large parts of the planet,

This was something new only to the 8 years of the Bush presidency? Last time I checked there was also war over large parts of the planet during the Clinton years too.

mass alienation and destabilisation,

That's new?

worldwide economic collapse...

Wow, so Bush is no single-handedly responsible for the worldwide economic collapse? Hyperbolic much? I was against Bush all throughout his stay in office but even I spot this as being total fucking bullshit. The economic collapse was catalyzed by the bursting of the housing bubble created by Alan Greenspan during the Clinton years.

i don't think any politician at all is "good", but you'll have to get up pretty early each morning and put in some very long hours to be actually WORSE than bush...

Obama must be working overtime, because in many of the areas you mention above they've only gotten worse, and will continue to get worse, under Obama.

Re:What garbage (0, Troll)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684363)

yes, millions. i do not count only "allied" soldiers. several million civilians are known to have died.

i always chuckle a little when people like dismiss the idea that the several trillion dollars spent on wars of aggression, surveillance and CIA torture camps could not possible have contributed in any way to the economic meltdown...

it must be the few billion dollars lost in sub-prime mortgages, right? was it even billions? might have been hundreds of millions... a tiny, insignificant fraction of what we have all spent blowing up women and children in the name of cheaper oil... wait, i meant democracy, right?

Re:What garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28684507)

Actually the estimate is a couple of trillion lost on sub-prime once the dust finally settles, about another trillion in losses still due on ARMs as they reset [marketwatch.com] , and something less than that on the commercial real estate market. 1/2 trillion up in smoke in Iraq didn't help any though.

Re:What garbage (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684517)

yes, millions. i do not count only "allied" soldiers. several million civilians are known to have died.

...Yet many the counters let people put in whatever number they feel like. Some are even sponsored by anti-war groups. Yes, many civilians have died, but you would be a fool to call the counters accurate.

i always chuckle a little when people like dismiss the idea that the several trillion dollars spent on wars of aggression, surveillance and CIA torture camps could not possible have contributed in any way to the economic meltdown...

...Because we all know that whenever the government spends money on wars it never goes to anyone it just vanishes into thin air right? I mean, we don't pay our soldiers, nor buy military equipment from any contractors. Nope, whenever the government spends money on a war it just ends up getting tossed into a black hole.

And CIA torture camps, how do they have anything to do with an economic meltdown? Yes, they are bad, we get that. Did it have anything to do with the meltdown. No.

Re:What garbage (0, Offtopic)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684779)

there are official estimates of casualties, and the more reputable counters will only count casualties that are backed up by at least 2 news sources. it's fairly safe to assume these are conservative figures and the real, unknowable but true figure is much higher and it is a matter of public record that our western governments have done nothing but create a huge mess and human tragedy on a scale not seen since world war 2. on the plus side, oil is a few dollars cheaper...

firing hundreds of millions of dollars of missiles into a target is, quite literally, the same as money getting tossed into a black hole. besides that... giving large amounts of money to military contractors and pumping large amounts of money into the army as a way to fix the economy was tried before...

during the last great depression...

by the nazi party in germany...

wasn't this topic something about trying to keep the news only on the sites that pay for the reportage? let's get back to that...

Re:What garbage (1, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684417)

millions needlessly dead,

...As opposed to people who would have died during Saddam's rule? Yes, the intelligence Bush got was faulty about the WMDs in Iraq, but you have to remember this is a dictator who not only invaded other countries but launched chemical warfare on his own people (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack [wikipedia.org] ). The invasion of Afghanistan really should have happened sooner and with a more powerful attack. But after the 9/11 attacks, you couldn't exactly ignore a huge terrorist group that very successfully attacked the USA.

war over large parts of the planet

...Because two countries consist of a "large part of the planet"? One of which was already at war (Afghanistan).

mass alienation and destabilisation,

Of who? And of what?

worldwide economic collapse...

Which we all know Bush is to blame for everything... Really, it started with Clinton and Clinton's desire to have every American own a home. Sure, its a noble idea but it went way to far. For example, a person who would ordinarily qualify for a $150,000 loan would be bumped up to getting a $1750,000 loan... So then eventually they couldn't pay it back because they borrowed more than they could afford. (see http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html [businessweek.com] for an article on what I'm talking about).

Obama's plan seems to be lets spend our way out of an economic collapse! Mixed with tons of regulations. For example, I have a good friend who runs a home building business, he has been in business since 1982 and hasn't defaulted on a single loan and hasn't been late on any of his bills in the past 20 years. Today, he can't get a loan to build another house because Obama's administration says that he is "too big of a risk" WTF!?! This person has sold all of their houses, how exactly is he supposed to get any more money to build houses and sell them if he can't get a loan for it? It makes no sense at all.

Re:What garbage (0, Troll)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684637)

you are stating that your opinion is that bush illegally attacked other sovereign nations, illegally invaded them and illegally occupied them...

saddam hussein's alleged crimes are a matter of record and have been for a very long time. it is extremely likely that most of the allegations are true.

likewise the taliban allegedly oppresses women, murders people and practices widescale slavery.

not nice people to be sure.

what did this have to do with the 11/9 attacks???

bush never directly made a link between them, the CIA categorically denied any link...

funnily enough, afganistan had turned down an oil pipeline through its territory for america... a pipeline that started being built pretty much on the day of the invasion...

i always find it strange that americans often believe there was some sort of link between 11/9 and iraq, when i can clearly remember news reports of exaustive MI5, CIA and other agencies checking back in 2001/2002. not just a "whodunnit" investigation, they specifically looked very closely for an iraq link. they did not find one at all (those terrorists groups hated iraq almost as much as they hated the west).

Re:What garbage (2, Interesting)

adminstring (608310) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684639)

I'd like some clarification about that last paragraph. Exactly how is Obama's administration preventing him from getting a loan? Can't anyone with money lend it to anyone they want, as long as the recipient isn't involved with something criminal that would make the lender an accessory to a crime? Or have the rules changed somehow?

Re:What garbage (1, Insightful)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684147)

Yes, the Bush administration had a lot of flaws, but Obama'a administration looks to be expanding on them.

Exactly. The funny thing is that now the Obama supporters are pulling the "But Bill Clinton did !!" that they were all complaining about the right doing it with regards to Bush's bullshit, but now they are doing the same thing with Bush to make excuses for Obama's bullshit.

Re:What garbage (3, Funny)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684095)

really???? worse than bush???

Yes. Multi-trillion dollar deficits, continued flushing of money down the toilet on bailouts to shitty companies, pardoning the telecos for helping in illegally wiretap citizens.

cough, cough... ENRON... cough...

cough, cough... GM... cough...

Re:What garbage (1, Troll)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684221)

Multi-trillion dollar deficits

inherited from the previous administration, nothing to do with obama...

pardoning the telecos for helping in illegally wiretap citizens.

entirely ordered and operated by the previous administration. condemned, ceased and genuine efforts made to find the best way to put it into the past with the least damage. original controversy nothing to do with obama...

so let me get this straight... your entire criticism is based around blaming every single thing on bush, then saying:

continued flushing of money down the toilet on bailouts to shitty companies

which may or may not be a good idea, but is 100% entirely, confessed by you, obama's best efforts to clean up the mess that bush left america in...

i am waiting for the part where you show obama to be worse...

Re:What garbage (3, Insightful)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684279)

inherited from the previous administration, nothing to do with obama...

No, they are a direct result of his budgets. He's even admitted to so.

entirely ordered and operated by the previous administration. condemned, ceased and genuine efforts made to find the best way to put it into the past with the least damage. original controversy nothing to do with obama...

But he definitely made sure that no one could ever hold them responsible by giving them immunity and as such providing tacit approval.

so let me get this straight... your entire criticism is based around blaming every single thing on bush, then saying:

No, I blame them both since Obama has taken what Bush has done and expanded it and made the situation that much worse.

which may or may not be a good idea, but is 100% entirely, confessed by you, obama's best efforts to clean up the mess that bush left america in...

Sorry, but I've confessed no such thing. I disagreed with it under Bush and I disagree with it even more with Obama's huge expansion of the bailouts.

i am waiting for the part where you show obama to be worse...

I already did. The fact that you attempted to hand wave it all away doesn't change that fact.

Re:What garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28685527)

oh BUUUURN

Re:What garbage (3, Insightful)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684121)

Oh and just as a further note, Enron's fraud and corruption happened during the Clinton Administration. Their big pump-and-dump happened in the last year of Clinton being in office so lumping that failure on Bush is pretty unfair and disingenuous.

Re:What garbage (0, Troll)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684265)

so the clinton family are the oil family that were filthy with the corruption of that scandal and still to this day have not wiped that particular stink off and the bush family were totally clean, having little to nothing to do with oil investments, right?

Re:What garbage (3, Insightful)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684295)

so the clinton family are the oil family that were filthy with the corruption of that scandal and still to this day have not wiped that particular stink off and the bush family were totally clean, having little to nothing to do with oil investments, right?

This is a great non sequitur. All of Enron's scams and corruptions happened years before Bush was even in office. Their big stock pump-and-dump happened in August of 2000 before he was even elected. This grasping at straws to blame anything and everything on Bush is both sad and laughable.

Re:What garbage (1)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684463)

did someone blame anything and everything on bush? i must have missed that comment.

i personally don't think any politician is worth anything at all. i would not piss on any of them if they were on fire...

but obama has barely passed half a year in office and it is a matter of record he inherited one of the worst messes any new president has ever had to deal with.

the fact that cannibalism has not taken off is to his credit i think...

Re:What garbage (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684975)

did someone blame anything and everything on bush? i must have missed that comment.

You did blame Enron on Bush at least by implication, so his accusation is spot on.

Re:What garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28684805)

Clinton family was real estate, Bush family was oil.

I still can't figure out why the USA government has so much corruption.

Re:What garbage (0, Troll)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685053)

Clinton family was real estate, Bush family was oil.

1: open google
2: type "define: sarcasm" without the quotes
3: hit return
4: read

I still can't figure out why the USA government has so much corruption.

you think that kind of corruption is only in the usa?

how sweet...

name a country, you can be pretty sure there is massive corruption and widescale injustice...

name a politician, it's a safe bet that s/he is a liar and is/has and always will be swindling more money than s/he is entitled to while serving their own interests in the name of the public good...

if we ever have to evacuate this planet, we really do need to make sure all the politicians and lawyers get their own "special" ship... whose course is set straight for the heart of the sun...

RSS, robots.txt and paywall (1)

guyfawkes-11-5 (1583613) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683821)

Simple. Disable RSS feeds,disallow all robots and then put it behind a paywall and see what happens.... either it thrives as the Wall Street journal seems to be doing, or it doesn't, as the 99% of other sites who have tried similar ideas. Where do I send my invoice?

i don't see it happening (1)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683823)

totally unworkable

who is to say that one report is ripping off another?

or that another report is not ripping off the first?

impossible to police, even harder to prosecute.

freedom will not be found in "free" countries (1)

Blue Shifted (1078715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683845)

how ironic that true information freedom will end up being centered in countries such as russia, or countries with less governmental control, such as on the african continent, or south america. hell, so called "unfree" countries such as china, even with it's great internet wall, will become safe havens for data that is heavily regulated by the west.

Re:freedom will not be found in "free" countries (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684297)

I wouldn't go that far. The (much less ironic) observation is that different governments have different priorities and their policing tactics reflect this.

China doesn't much care about bourgeois western "intellectual property", so you can send spam hawking pirated software all you want. Send out invites for your next falun gong meeting or democracy protest, though, and you'll discover what 'so called "unfree"' really means.

The US is quite solid on speech that doesn't upset major corporations, and is an excellent spot for saying mean things about religious figures, expressing all kinds of fun political theories, hosting your "handguns I have known and loved" archive or whatever. Not such a good place to host "WareZ and DeCSS 4LyFE!", though.

There are plenty of locations(though exactly where they are tends to drift over time) where the state is weak enough, or enough in need of foreign investment/aid, that(as long as you maintain a polite disinterest in local politics, and pay the occasional bribe) they won't really bother you at all. Pretty much any government will come down on you like a ton of bricks in response to some class of actions on your part and pretty much any government has another class of activities of which it approves, or simply doesn't care.

Hamburg Declaration (3, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683855)

Hamburg Declaration:

"I'll have mine with cheese and bacon."

Re:Hamburg Declaration (2, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684177)

Here I was imagining Obama flying to Germany making a famous "Ich ben ein Hamburger!"

Oh how I would love him to say that...

Re:Hamburg Declaration (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684429)

FWIW, I get your joke and think it's very funny.

BTW, it's "bin", not "ben".

Re:Hamburg Declaration (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684809)

Busted [about.com] :

So, while the proper way for a Berlin native to say "I am a Berliner" is "Ich bin Berliner," the proper way for a non-native to make the same statement metaphorically is precisely what Kennedy said: "Ich bin ein Berliner." In spite of the fact that it's also the correct way to say "I am a jelly donut," no adult German speaker could possibly have misunderstood Kennedy's meaning in context.

...But it was still funny. (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684931)

In spite of the fact that it's also the correct way to say "I am a jelly donut," no adult German speaker could possibly have misunderstood Kennedy's meaning in context.

Be that as it may, my German teacher, who is German through and through, described watching the Kennedy speech on the tube with her family in Germany and busting a gut when he uttered that line, for which her grandmother scolded her for being disrespectful.

A person from Hamburg is called, in both English and German, a "Hamburger", and thus the proper way to say you're from Hamburg in English is to say, "I am a Hamburger." In the proper context, this is understood to mean a person from Hamburg -- but it's still funny. :)

Cheers,

Re:Hamburg Declaration (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685597)

Hamburg Declaration: "I'll have mine with cheese and bacon."

But are you going to pay for it today or on Tuesday?

The Internet Says "No" (5, Insightful)

flydude18 (839328) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683875)

Sorry.

I wish they'd focus on the news (4, Interesting)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683883)

I'd settle for news organizations doing a better job of reporting the news, and stop the spinning and opinions. I'd pay for real news with no bias.

Just the facts as best you can report them please. Leave your opinions at home.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (2, Insightful)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683953)

only on the condition that there is ZERO reportage of "celebrity" nonsense

i would not pay a single penny if their inanity were infecting a news source i was paying for, it's bad enough seeing their crap all over the BBC news site (which i suppose i actually AM directly paying for already, but we don't have a choice but to pay for that).

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (3, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684109)

Many governments publish gigabytes of CSV files, PDF files, and database files. I assume that's what you're referring to when you say you just want facts published. Should the New York Times just be filled with tables of data?

If you want that information translated into written English, the author of that text is going to have a point of view and a context within which they write. It's the way language works. And everyone wants other people to share their understanding of events.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684219)

But if you look at American televised news, you see that it really isn't news but rather a bunch of opinionated people trying to create A) Panic so more people will tune in (look at how they handled Swine Flu) B) A "shocking" story that isn't news or C) Things that paint their company in a positive light. Electronic and print news has bias, but it is less of opinion and more on the selection of stories. While some of it could be justified (people reading TorrentFreak aren't going to really care about how some guy got busted selling bootlegged DVDs in China) a lot of it is to spin the "facts" towards one side.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (2, Interesting)

somenickname (1270442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684811)

Many governments publish gigabytes of CSV files, PDF files, and database files. I assume that's what you're referring to when you say you just want facts published. Should the New York Times just be filled with tables of data?

No, they should describe the contents of those documents in English and in an unbiased manner. That's what "the news" is. It's not sensationalist crap with a slant on the writers/editors/publishers view.

If you want that information translated into written English, the author of that text is going to have a point of view and a context within which they write. It's the way language works. And everyone wants other people to share their understanding of events.

Then they shouldn't be writing it. It has nothing to do with the language. What you are describing is a blog. The news is not a blog. If I read a news article that says, "this reporter thinks", "our analyst thinks", "our correspondent thinks", and I gave a fuck about what any of those people think, I would subscribe to their *blog*.

Tell me the facts and go away.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684113)

I find the BBC's world news to be pretty unbiased as for the part of opinions. Though I do think they publish stories with only a few "facts" to sway one side or another.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684301)

The BBC is paid for by the British Government, one way or another. In a different country that type of funding would be a really bad idea.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28684531)

The BBC World Service is paid for by the British Government, but the rest of it isn't.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684693)

I think government funded TV works (with varying degrees of unbias) in much of the western world (BBC,ABC,TVE,etc), i do agree that trying it in America would cause hell though.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (0, Redundant)

JStegmaier (1051176) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685049)

ABC

So Disney is considered a government now?!

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685243)

ABC

So Disney is considered a government now?!

Australian Broadcast Corporation. Funded directly by the Australian federal government. Otherwise, run like a smaller version of the BBC.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (2, Informative)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684901)

the BBC is not paid for by the government.

the BBC is paid for by the british public through a "license" we are pretty much forced to buy.

sure, if you do NOT own or possess a television, VCR, dvd player, radio or computer, you don't have to pay for it... (including in your car)

do you know anyone without any form of electronic entertainment?

the one good thing about this system is that the british government has zero influence or control over the BBC (in theory) and the BBC is free the criticise the government or its policies in any way it wants.

the biggest problem though, is that most of the output of the BBC is complete crap, vying for the attentions of the lowest common denominator (stupidest) of dole scrounging (welfare) scumbags (jerks) from sink estates (the projects). american translations in brackets for those that need them there...

in other words, the license is very expensive and the bits of the BBC that are good do not actually cost much.

i am still waiting for the day they break up the bbc and i just pay for the parts i think are worth having...

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684943)

the BBC is paid for by the british public through a "license" we are pretty much forced to buy.

By the Government. Thats what I mean by "one way or another".

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (1)

Tom Smith (1305367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685099)

the government does not force it, the judiciary does...

you get extremely large fines imposed by the courts if you are caught with electronic entertainment equipment and no license...

the government has nothing to do with it.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685005)

the biggest problem though, is that most of the output of the BBC is complete crap, vying for the attentions of the lowest common denominator (stupidest) of dole scrounging (welfare) scumbags (jerks) from sink estates (the projects). american translations in brackets for those that need them there...

In America we call those parentheses. Brackets are either square: [] or angle: . Then there are these {}, which are braces.

BBC has my favorite example of slant (1)

a2wflc (705508) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684381)

I love this BBC world news title: "2007 data confirms warming trend". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7142694.stm [bbc.co.uk] Nowhere in the article does it mention that 2007 was cooler than 2002-2006 or 2007 was cooler than 2006 which was cooler than 2005.
 
Fortunately they included a table so anyone who bothered to re-sort the table by year would know that their definition of trend is a little odd.
 
Unfortunately most people read the title, a few less read the first paragraph, and relatively few analyze the data tables.
 
I'd call this bias unless they admit the negative short-term trend up front and explain how climate scientists determine trends. At the time, they could have used nasa temps instead of Hadley's and it wouldn't have looked so bad short-term. So I don't think it was intentional bias, but writers/editors not knowing enough of the subject to write an article and just copying press releases (which are always biased towards whoever releases them)

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (2, Insightful)

FourthAge (1377519) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684485)

The BBC definitely are biased. The thing about bias is that you only tend to notice it when it jars with your own personal world view. That's when it really stands out, and you think "OMG WTF, how can you say that?"

I often find this on the BBC, but then, I disapprove of their predominant ideology, and that of the government they serve (see my sig). I live in Britain.

Re:I wish they'd focus on the news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28685223)

Reality has a well-known Liberal bias.

Steamengines (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683889)

I make steamengines and I did not believe in the combustionengine. Please make it a crime to own a combustion-engine. That is what these people want. Nothing more, nothing less.

People are mis-understanding this issue: (5, Informative)

popo (107611) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683911)

This isn't about free web content, or copyright.

The newspapers are trying to establish ownership of the underlying INFORMATION, not just the words they use to convey that information.

Newspapers who actually go out and "get" news are trying to establish control over that information so that those who re-report do not compete directly with the original report.

This isn't about copyright, it is about establishing a new 'estate' of IP which establishes ownership over directly sourced/reported information.

Re:People are mis-understanding this issue: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28683963)

Intellectual property does not exist. There are only secrets and published information. It may take some people a way to understand why it is like this, but the truth is inevitable.

Re:People are mis-understanding this issue: (3, Insightful)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683971)

Which is hilarious, since most newspapers have been axing their writers left and right. Something like 3/4 of your major local rag is probably AP stories.

Like the AP needs help sucking money out of newspapers.

American newspapers (5, Interesting)

andersh (229403) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684875)

While that is true for many American newspapers it's not the same for European newspapers. And Europeans read more newspapers than the average US American (according to the int'l newspaper association).

Then again Europe is not a country and with over 47 countries there are a whole lot of variety in newspapers (and sources).

In my own country newspapers are seen as an important public function and are subsidized to support independent, varied and local reporting [ejc.net] . It's given to support political views and cultural issues such as publishing in the regional language (official language, not dialect). Small, regional newspapers are seen as part of the democratic foundation of my country. I suppose that's why my countrymen and I read the most newspaper per capita in the world.

Re:American newspapers (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685155)

It probably doesnt hurt that norway is dark and encased in ice for a huge chunk of the year.

Re:People are mis-understanding this issue: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28684187)

I've got an easy solution if they try and pull this.

Don't give those people information. It's not like they pay the people they interview anyway.

I'm sure someone will invent a way for us to share original news.

Re:People are mis-understanding this issue: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28685247)

Two thoughts:

1. Personally, if I like going to the source if possible. Even for things like syndication, I'd rather go to reuters.com than a imahackblogger.com website.

2. You'd think people who deal in information would be more cautious about preventing the flow of information.

Re:People are mis-understanding this issue: (1)

mckinnsb (984522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685661)

I would refine your observation with the following: European Newspapers aren't just trying to establish ownership of the underlying information, they are trying to:

  1. fundamentally change the way it is packaged to their proposal, after a free market decided against said proposal
  2. fundamentally change the medium of delivery, and then force everyone else to use it a la 1)
  3. foist all the costs onto either a) the search engine companies b) the taxpayer or c) the government (which ultimately leads to a or b anyway)

.

The main problem with the ACAP system is that you cannot accurately index the content (or index the content as well) because bizarre restrictions may in be place given the media in question, causing incorrect evaluation. I'm not sure if the execs understand that their system will decrease their content's visibility, or if they expect search companies to foot the bill for the erection of a third meta-index to interface with proprietary content - both of which are equally asinine.

(apologies to any newspaper execs in the audience) /cheeky

Why is it always draconian? (0)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28683923)

TFA refers to it as "Draconian Automated Content Access Protocol", we also have Draconian DRM and Draconian Internet Filters. See Draconian always makes me think of Dracula, which makes me think of the cereal Count Chacula which forces me to go up and eat some. Imagine doing this every time you read an article on DRM. Needless to say I'm putting on weight and the womens are no longer responding. So I would appreciate it if someone could come up with a new word.

Re:Why is it always draconian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28684153)

Why is it always draconian?

I didn't read any of your post because you kindly summarized your post in the heading, professional slashdotter that you are.

Answering your question, I have to say that's what I'd damn well like to know, too. Why can't they institute puppy-like, bunny-some or kitty-ish measures for once? Always with the big guns, corporatists, always with the big guns! Tsk, tsk.

Re:Why is it always draconian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28684173)

I'd suggest "Fucking" ... as in

Fucking DRM

Fucking Internet Filters

and

Fucking Automated Content Access Protocol

----

Rumors of this substitution originating with high-level executives within Microsoft can be neither confirmed nor denied.

----

PS> We expressly disclaim any and ALL actions you take in regards to this new suggestion. !!!

Re:Why is it always draconian? (3, Informative)

Tynam (1284066) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684191)

Because Draconian [wikipedia.org] is the correct adjective for laws which demand disproportionate punishments for minor offences.

Vampires, sadly, have nothing to do with it. Although, most articles on DRM make me want to impale someone, so I suppose there's a connection.

Re:Why is it always draconian? (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685641)

Interesting. I always thought "draconian" was the adjective form of "dragon", which are traditionally thought of as being cruel, terrorizing people, and once in a while eating someone just for fun.

Journalism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28684137)

Wanna know why people have stopped reading papers? Because online they can skip to the next article without that feeling of "but I paid for the paper" and thus can escape the childish, state-obedient garbage that passes for journalism these days.
Wanna know why people will not pay for access?

see above

I presume, perhaps incorrectly, that people here on /. read a number of sites, see what each is saying and draw an average from all the reports. No one site/source/newsroom has sufficient credibility anymore to be the sole source of news. They've all shown themselves to be moronic repeaters of "the official line".

Sue them back using the same law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28684271)

If you're on a crashing airplane, twitter about it. Then use your twitter as justification that the reported information is YOURS and demand all the news outlets to pay you for use of that information. Sorry, I should use the correct form.

1) See event
2) Twitter about it
3) Sue other news agencies
4) Profit!

Re:Sue them back using the same law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28685531)

If you're on a crashing airplane, twitter about it. Then use your twitter as justification that the reported information is YOURS and demand all the news outlets to pay you for use of that information. Sorry, I should use the correct form.

1) See event

2) Twitter about it

3) Sue other news agencies

4) ???

5) Profit!

FTFY

Remember Salon and Slate tried to charge too.. (1)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684283)

and how well did that work out for them? They both had to back off immediately or go extinct. I've heard the NY Times is looking into charging for content. I dont' expect that'll work out well either. People will just migrate to free every time. Pooh on you EU!

Not news (1)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684383)

Just another special privilege which the government will grant to special interests and the less-free-with-each-passing-moment market will be blamed for.

Re:Not news (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684495)

And the internet will route around them....

Re:Not news (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28684583)

The governments have a plan for that.

Ahh Slashdot... (-1, Troll)

tyrione (134248) | more than 5 years ago | (#28685285)

still full of dickless wankers who are trying to defend a Fundamentalist Fascist with a Messiah Complex as being accountable to that of President Obama. Either this click is full of disgruntled derivatives traders, fraudulent preachers mad about losing their religious funding or a bunch of punks who were born after Reagan finished his second term and haven't a clue about what a clusterf'ck the US has been for the past 40 years. I know I'm missing other collective sheep but it's not hard to see how greed, blind faith and ignorance all tie in together.

P.S. To the original purpose of this thread it never ceases to amaze me the amount of energy wasted on such garbage as attempting to impose a law as this idea while proclaiming to be a free and reasoned set of nations.

It's bad enough the US allowed little messiah to run the nation into the ditch for 8 years while we put up with all the bitching from the EU about it, but you equally have mini-murdochs attempting economic coups of their own in your back yard. Clean up your own s*** and we'll do the same.

Perhaps these folks feel they are tired of having books, journals, magazines and more printed in hopes we all buy those lame ass Kindles.

The day that attempt arrives is the day a new industry of publishing will start making this consortium powerless and holding nothing.

Re:Ahh Slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28685379)

...still full of dickless wankers...

Now I'm curious: How does one wank without a dick?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?