Slashdot Mirror


Deep Linking Legal in Germany

BlueWonder writes "German news site Heise Online reports a recent decision of the Bundesgerichtshof, the highest court in Germany: Deep linking is not illegal. Newspaper company Verlagsgruppe Handelsblatt had sued the news search engine Paperboy for deep linking to their articles. According to the Bundesgerichtshof, the public interest in a well-working Internet takes precedence over the commercial interests of the newspaper company, even if the advertizing of the company is bypassed. The Bundesgerichtshof has clarified that users can access any page if they know the URL, and deep linking is just a technical simplification for entering the URL manually. (Warning: links go to German sites - use the fish...)"

142 comments

  1. Wrong dept. by BgJonson79 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't it be from the-no-shit-dept. ?

    --

    There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    1. Re:Wrong dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am concerned about the growing trend of referring to babel fish simply as generic "fish", this is totally misleading, and should not be permitted on slashdot.

      While Joe Sixpack might understand your new term, spare a thought if you will for Joe Fourpack, who has never even heard of the late great Douglas Adadms, who attempts to insert Pike, pirahna, tuna or cod into his ear, resulting in damaged
      inner ear. Only a babel fish will do.

      End the madness!

  2. vagina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    vagina

    1. Re:Vagina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's a vagina?

  3. How about some deep DICKIN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    ntyfn (no text you fucking nigger)

  4. * SPOLIER * Trinity dies at the end of LXG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    * SPOLIER * Trinity dies at the end of LXG!

    1. Re:* SPOLIER * Trinity dies at the end of LXG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      And Agent Smith turns out to be Neo's father, but that's revealed in T3, not LXG.

  5. What's the deal with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you cat fanatics? I've been sitting here on my sofa in front of a cat (a sealpoint siamese) for about 20 minutes now while attempting to get it's attention away from a bug on the floor. 20 minutes. At home, with my labrador cross, which by all standards should be a lot dumber than this cat, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

    In addition, during this attention seeking attempt, my children's attention is also held by the cat. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even trying to get the remote from my partner fails.

    I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while dealing with other cats, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a cat that fetches as much as it's canine counterpart, despite the cat's faster ambulatory system. My terrier with one ingrown toenail runs consistently faster than this siamese at times, as the cat is often completely asleep. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the cat is a superior animal.

    Cat addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a cat over other faster, cheaper, more affectionate animals.

    1. Re:What's the deal with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XLNT ps0t!! teh best i've read all DAY!

  6. Who cares!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Fuck this... why hasn't there been an article about the 5DWM yet?

    Fucking Slashdot

    1. Re:Who cares!? by Toby+Studabaker · · Score: -1, Troll
      Oh, swell. Yet another desktop. Don't you think it would be better to adopt a standard cross-OS GUI based on Windows GUI with which most people are already familiar?

      Besides, that desktop looks exactly like WindowMaker that has been around for years.

  7. * SPOLIER * Trinity dies at the end of T3! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    * SPOLIER * Trinity dies at the end of T3!

  8. Guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Microsoft is still kicking lunix ass! Have a nice day coding and beating off to gay porn, fags.

  9. First "Did anyone else read that as..." post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    (psst... Slashbot-style posting coming up)

    Erm, yeah, I know I'm sacrificing karma to say this but did anyone else read this as DEEP THINKING LEGAL IN GERMANY. Oh, HA HA HA. Yes, I'm really funny. But make sure you mod me up insightful, as I don't get karma for funny mods. And another thing, does this run Linux? What about my rights? Have these people even heard of the first amendment? I was chased by some black helicopters. 3: Profit. I'm about to graduate and there's no jobs. Micro$oft - tee hee! Imagine a beowulf cluster of DEEP LINKING LEGAL IN GERMANY. Has someone ported this to NetBSD yet? I've been thinking about coding one of these for a while, but haven't had the time to do it myself. Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary and meaningless karma deserve neither oxygen nor my time.

    I thank you. Oh, and you GNAA tossers can shove it.

    1. Re:First "Did anyone else read that as..." post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it!

    2. Re:First "Did anyone else read that as..." post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me too!

  10. VLADINATOR IS A MEMBER OF THE GNAA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Yes, it's true, I have acquired a list of all members of the GNAA, and William Scott Lockwood III was on the list. This shocking revelation brings into question the previously excellent reputation of the GNAA. Surely nobody wants to be members of an organization that Vladinator is also a member of. I would recommend everyone reconsider their membership to the GNAA and unless you like to associate with losers and oathbreakers like Vladinator that you quit. So, I am encouraging all members of the GNAA to quit and join the SJP (Straight Jew Posse) instead. I know I have already given up my GNAA membership.

    Thank you for your time.

    - Posted by a proud member of the SJP.

  11. Its Nice to see that someone has some sense by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's good to see that theres at least one state in the world that isn't rushing to welfare programs for lawyers with pointless laws.

    Imagine if they had ruled deep linking was illegal ? think of the enforcement nightmare.

  12. * SPOLIER * Trinity dies at the end of Seabiscuit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    * SPOLIER * Trinity dies at the end of Seabiscuit!

  13. Wow... by mgcsinc · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    A European decision in favor of freedom to information, that's markedly different than the seeming move to a right-to-respond rule online covered by slash-dot before...

    1. Re:Wow... by quigonn · · Score: 1

      The right to respond is actually a good thing. It is a protection against slander in newspapers and on websites.

      --
      A monkey is doing the real work for me.
    2. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did Slashdot become so PC that any reference to the very verifiable lack of certain freedoms in Europe is "Flaimbait?"

    3. Re:Wow... by oxygene2k2 · · Score: 1

      please tell me which freedom you lack because of right-to-reply?

      it exists for decades now and just got extended to cover electronic publishing. it's reasonable, it's not really burdensome (a link to the reply - 80bytes or so - will surely kill you, right?).

      you can even ignore it - you're in about the same situation as in the USA then: get sued, publish the reply, probably pay a fine

      the only thing you can't do it talk shit about people with much less power than you (money, influence, ..), so it actually evens the field a bit.

      of course, if you just want to ensure "freedom" and "rights" for those with the money to pay for them, right-to-reply will be nothing for you.

      the german mentality prefers to build a strong set of laws and use the courts as an exception instead of them being the rule.
      there also doesn't exist the strong notion of "case law" as it is in the USA. past court decrees _may_ be used as guidelines, esp if one of the sides brings up that case, but usually our laws are enough for a proper decision.

  14. This is not new in Germany! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Deep linking has always been legal in Germany. Hell, I've got ten-year-old VHS with a guy who links so deeply he almost gets his arm in UP TO THE ELBOW!

  15. They're nuts. Deep Linking = GREAT traffic source by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've recently started using a news aggregator that takes RSS feeds from various sources and provides deep links straight to the article pages of their sites.

    I find myself visiting pages on the Register, The Motley Fool, and loads of other websites that I would never have visited otherwise.

    The publishers of these feeds know that, they know that it brings traffic and if they didn't want to do it they could pull the feed and prevent deep linking using any of various hacks.

    It is up to them as a publisher to use deep linking to their advantage and stop being so anal about it.

  16. Why all the fuss? by Stackster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If a site doesn't want anyone to "deep link" to them, why not just check the HTTP_REFERER HTTP header, and send those requests that come frome a "deep link" (anything outside their own site, probably) to the front page?
    Sure, you can set your own referer header and fool such things, but "ordinary users" wouldn't bother doing that.

    (Or do Big Evil Compaines always try to take legal action first, and if that fails, go for a technical solution?)

    --

    There are 010 kinds of people. Those who understand octal, those who don't, and 06 other kinds of morons.
    1. Re:Why all the fuss? by janda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, most larger companies hire their own laywers, they might as well keep them busy...

      Seriously, I think this is (mostly) another example of the marketing department doing the design work, and not understanding the technology. Then, when they find out that people can bypass their ads, they talk to the programmers.

      The programmers tell them that this is the way the protocol is supposed to work, so there's no real way around it without recoding everything to use cookies, registration, headers, and other stuff, which will make the marketing department look bad for not giving good requirements in the first place.

      It will make the marketing department look even worse if the programmers said it should be done with cookies, headers, etc and the marketing department did the "we don't have time" routine.

      So, drag them to court first.

      Note: You can substitute any department/person for "marketing" here, I'm just using them as an example from personal experience.

      --
      Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
    2. Re:Why all the fuss? by SCY.tSCc. · · Score: 5, Interesting
      If a site doesn't want anyone to "deep link" to them, why not just check the HTTP_REFERER HTTP header, and send those requests that come frome a "deep link"


      Unfortunally, that approach is inherently flawed. Some proxies remove the HTTP_REFERER header or change it to something else (ever seen those XXX_REFERER removed by SoftwareXYZ in your logs?).

      In addition, caches (built into your browser or proxy) in general might get confused by different content that comes with the same URL because it depends upon the HTTP_REFERER header.

      bye,
      Settel
    3. Re:Why all the fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of all people in the higher echelons (where the decisions are made) are non-technical, and mostly don't bother to ask the people in-the-know (the techies :-) about possible solutions.

      That leaves them with a small knowledge-base to work with, in which to (threaten to) sue is about the only way they know to respond with. (Although, it's great advertising too :-)

      Checking the referrer to a page is one way to (somewhat) block deep-linking (although it can, as said, easily be circumvented because it's routed thru the users machine).

      Another way is to implement a (possibly very simple) state-machine for every connection. That way the "referrer page" -information will stay in the server and cannot easily be manipulated.

      Somehow that makes me think of an *allready available* virtual (server-based) folder/file (tree) structure ... :-)

    4. Re:Why all the fuss? by JimDabell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some proxies remove the HTTP_REFERER header or change it to something else (ever seen those XXX_REFERER removed by SoftwareXYZ in your logs?).

      As far as I am aware, no software spoofs the Referer header by changing it to another URI. So simply block the people whose referring URI begins with 'http://' and does not come from your domain. Log the ones you block, and whenever any new ones come up, send an email to the webmaster. If a new "privacy enhancer" or whatever appears that does spoof the referrer with a false URI, simply exempt those from your checks.

      Remember, you aren't aiming to catch everybody who may possibly come from elsewhere, you are just making it unlikely anyone will deep-link to you.

      In addition, caches (built into your browser or proxy) in general might get confused by different content that comes with the same URL because it depends upon the HTTP_REFERER header.

      Not if you send a Vary header. Anything that gets confused by multiple objects available at the same URI when a Vary header is present is deeply broken, and will break in lots of different ways on lots of different sites.

    5. Re:Why all the fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is just not correct.

      it's not +5 interesting

    6. Re:Why all the fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      make a random key after the URL. do a database lookup to see if it's valid. if not, put up an ad page, with a link to a fresh random key going to the real page.

    7. Re:Why all the fuss? by i_really_dont_care · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are a bunch of other possibilities to avoid "deep linking", for example by using dynamic content. I assume, they are already using cookies or session IDs to track their users. The same technology can be used to assure that a user has to view the main page before a subpage can be shown.

      It's also important to note that the ruling was about deep linking "per se" and not about accessing content that is protected. The press text reads:

      "Ein Berechtigter, der ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk ohne technische Schutzmaßnahmen im Internet öffentlich zugänglich mache, ermögliche dadurch bereits selbst die Nutzungen [...]."

      Which means (sorry for my bad English, emphasis mine):

      "A benificiary who publicy publishes a copyrighted work without technical protection on the Internet, thereby already permits its use [...].

      This makes perfect sense for me.

    8. Re:Why all the fuss? by bwt · · Score: 1

      I think that if a site requires the referring page to come from one its own domain and you spoof that somehow to make a deep link, then you would be guilty of copyright infringement, for unauthorized derivitive work. Deep-linking should be legal as an explicit authorization rule, because the web server authorizes you to use the work in the way your HTTP GET requests. If your HTTP GET header is fraudulent, then you don't have a grant to use it.

      If a site requires it and you use a proxy that strips it off, then you will simply be denied access. That's the proxie's fault for purposefully thwarting the HTTP standard, so I have no sympathy for them.

    9. Re:Why all the fuss? by Homology · · Score: 1
      As far as I am aware, no software spoofs the Referer header by changing it to another URI. So simply block the people whose referring URI begins with 'http://' and does not come from your domain.

      The privacy software Privoxy lets you spoof the Referer header. You may either set it manually, like "http://NoneOfYourFucking.Business" or let Privoxy spoof by setting the Refererer to the site you visit.

      If a new "privacy enhancer" or whatever appears that does spoof the referrer with a false URI, simply exempt those from your checks.

      Spoofed. See above.

    10. Re:Why all the fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a stupid setting. If you don't want to give the site a referrer, just omit it. If a site blocks content based on referrer, it should mention this policy to the visitor, so that he can correct a misconfiguration. Most referrer-checks allow empty and site-internal referrers, but no external referrers. Should referrer-checks become common practice, users will treat it like popups: They will turn the annoyance off.

    11. Re:Why all the fuss? by JimDabell · · Score: 1

      I think that if a site requires the referring page to come from one its own domain and you spoof that somehow to make a deep link

      That makes no sense. The Referer header is under the control of the user, not the website with the originating link on. A person who deep-links to another site can't make his visitors send "fraudulent" requests in this way.

      If a site requires it and you use a proxy that strips it off, then you will simply be denied access. That's the proxie's fault for purposefully thwarting the HTTP standard, so I have no sympathy for them.

      There is no requirement in the HTTP RFC that clients must provide that header, in fact it explicitly states that it should be easily disabled by end-users. See section 15 of RFC 2616 for details:

      We suggest, though do not require, that a convenient toggle interface be provided for the user to enable or disable the sending of From and Referer information.

    12. Re:Why all the fuss? by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      Simple fixes all around. If the REFERER is blocked, check the logs for requests from that IP previously. If they've hit the main page within, say, the previous 20 minutes, then it's probably just a proxy.

      As for confusing the cache, I wouldnt' think the HTTP_REFERER would have anything to do with it, the actual URL would probably be a much better choice for labeling what comes from that URL (*shrug*), but for the sake of the possibility: Toss them a "Location:" HTTP header in response and simply bounce them, no meta tags required.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    13. Re:Why all the fuss? by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

      Just becouse.

      If person sees link to some interesting article,
      clicks on it, and comes to clueless home page,
      full of advertisments, he/she becomes very angry
      with this site and probably would never click on
      links pointing to this site again, thinking
      "Arghh, it is that bullshit site which shows me
      their ads instead of what I want to read"

      Moreover, these people would become angry with site which do provide incorrect link too.

      This is even an issue with news sites where news
      tends to go away from first page after a while.

  17. Re:* SPOLIER * by fehlschlag · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Spolier - the new french word for "some posters have no clue".

  18. Please consider by BlueTrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    arresting Google, they provide deep-linking and even CACHE !!!

    Oh wait ... you are too lazy to put a robots.txt in your root ?

    --
    Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
  19. Re:They're nuts. Deep Linking = GREAT traffic sour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    It is up to them as a publisher to use deep linking to their advantage and stop being so anal about it.




    Heh..... he said anal.


  20. Vagina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Can someone provide a deep link to some German vagina?

  21. One noteworthy point not mentioned in the /. story by mkweise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is that the rulin states that if the owner of a web site wants to prevent deep linking, it may feel free to use technical measures to prevent it. (That could be as simple as using the referrer= tag.) It goes on to state that circumventing technical measures designed to prevent deep-linking very well may be illegal (and that they'd rule on that if and when it comes up.)

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
  22. That doesn't solve all problems. by Krapangor · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You might now think that Germany is the land of the sane and bright, but this isn't true.
    In fact in some German states ISP are required to use censorship filters to filter content which is showing disrespect to human dignity like infamous rotten or neo nazi propaganda.
    Indeed taking the new decision of congress to ensure free, uncensored internet access everywhere on the world, then you'll see very soon that Germany will be besides North Korea, China, Vietman, Iran and Lybia on the list of offenders.
    Germany has a long list of incidents of restricting the peoples right to access information and entertainment by claiming to protect youth and society. So sales of Doom, Quake and Command and Conquer 3 are extremely restricted like hardcore bukkakke porn. Furthermore you can't get Hitler's "Main Kampf" or plans for explosives of weapons in stores.
    This is a severe restriction of free information access. Free is free and information is information. That doesn't imply a qualitative measurement. So, in a truely free society people would have free access to images of severed head, torn inards and mindless racist propaganda, too.

    I think that's a very bad direction for the German society. The public rights are slowly getting more and restricted. In this picture it fits that the limits for consumed alcohol before driving are steadly lowered, speed limits are spreading like salmonella, the weapon laws are more and more restricted and smoking is made illegal in more and more places.

    Honestly, I don't know where this leads to. I'm just scared.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by BlueTrin · · Score: 2
      Furthermore you can't get Hitler's "Main Kampf" or plans for explosives of weapons in stores.
      I won't complain for these ones =)
      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    2. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the reason that you cannot buy Mein Kampf in germany is not due to any legal restrictions but rather because the (german language) copyright holder has chosen not to allow reprints.

    3. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by mkweise · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You might now think that Germany is the land of the sane and bright, but this isn't true.
      In fact in some German states ISP are required to use censorship filters to filter content which is showing disrespect to human dignity like infamous rotten [rotten.com] or neo nazi propaganda

      Indeed taking the new decision of congress to ensure free, uncensored internet access everywhere on the world, then you'll see very soon that Germany will be besides North Korea, China, Vietman, Iran and Lybia on the list of offenders.

      As would the United States, if you look at the matter objectively. Please understand that many Germans feel as strongly about neo nazi propaganda as Americans do about kiddie porn...or certain decryption tools, for that matter.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
    4. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you confuse a few things here: Lowering the threshold of alcohol consumption and speed limits have nothing to do with the current case. The point is that beeing drunk or to fast in a car usually means endangering of other people as well - especially in a densely populated area like germany. Freedom is always the freedom of the others - and I prefer to be free to walk down a street without fear of a drunk maniac giving me a free ride on his hood.

      I agree with your complaints about ISPs forced to block some sites (purely dns-based, thus quite harmless). This is plain stupid.

    5. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by martin-k · · Score: 1
      the reason that you cannot buy Mein Kampf in germany is not due to any legal restrictions but rather because the (german language) copyright holder has chosen not to allow reprints.

      The copyright holder is the Bavarian government and they are using copyright law to restrict distribution of that book. So, yes, it could be argued that this is censorship, and, yes, in this case I am glad they are doing it.

    6. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not correct!

      > So sales of Doom, Quake and Command
      > and Conquer 3 are extremely restricted

      You must be 18 years old or older, thats all.

      > In fact in some German states ISP are required
      > to use censorship filters to filter content
      > which is showing disrespect to human dignity
      > like infamous rotten [rotten.com] or neo nazi
      > propaganda

      There are 17 German states, contents are only filtert in North Rhine-Westphalia. (I think that about 10 - 20 sites are filtert.)

      There are many people and clubs like CCC against filtering, because it is AGAINST THE GERMAN LAW.

      But it is allowed to use other DNS outside NRW.

      > Furthermore you can't get Hitler's "Main Kampf"

      You can buy the annotated version. But I don't like it too, that you can't read the original book if you want. (The name of the book is "Mein Kampf")

      > or plans for explosives of weapons in stores

      Oh, I think that's a good law.

    7. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by GlowStars · · Score: 1

      Furthermore you can't get Hitler's "Main Kampf" or plans for explosives of weapons in stores.

      Note that "Mein Kampf" is not banned in Germany, but in fact the domestic copyright holder (the state of bavaria if I'm not mistaken) does not grant permission to publish it.

    8. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Qacker · · Score: 1

      Good points! Anyway the Bad Guys(tm) all ready know how to make or buy explosives, the Smart Guys(tm) also know how but don't or if they do they use them where they can't hurt anything. The cops and Feds or whatever they have in Germany might say they stop terrorist but they don't; however they DO stop stupid kids from blowing the legs of there friend's cat. Same goes for the USA

      --
      Learn lisp today!
    9. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Krapangor or whoever, I think it's your inherent racism that makes you name countries such as North Korea, China, Vietman, Iran and Lybia.

      Lets see, Vietnam? Does this country have a infrastructure even? Oh come on they are gooks right? Not even human, waste em (-- exactly what a United States Army military commander said to his underlings, before they went into villages, raped all the young girls, then assembled them with the older women and children, gunned them down, or executed them in the head, killed all the old ppl, baynotted the young ones below 2 years of age, assembled women and children into a ditch and shot till the ditch was waste deep in blood... yes this happend .. 500 people died in one incident.. my lie). So they are gooks.. waste em.. put them on the list of crappers forever.. oh btw... the people who killed all the babies, and raped the girls before shoving a gun up their private parts and blowing them to pieces.. yes those rapies, revenging rastists .. let them go free..the are hero's after all.. HERO's. THEY ARE HEROS. The orientals of vietnam are not human since they are gooks and not white, add them to any list that you might find demeaning, tell your children to do this 30 years from now.

      Iran and Lybia -- Jesus H. Christ, these guys arnt even connected to be named here. You should have been better off naming Saudi Arabia and United States of America with the monkeyking AWOL BUSH.

      At least respect the cultural and historic preference of these nations. You do know why Germans are so sensitive about the Nazi right? You do know why Saudi Arabians would ban XXX rated shit do you? And gambling do you?

      Well what else should I say to open the eyese of the unbelievers?

    10. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you AC, I just wish this never happens again. But the way our army is being streached out, it might happen, who knows if it hasnt already, 6000-10k civil deaths, 10's of thousand military death on the iraqi side. We'd know in a few years just how cruel we've been again.

      On My Lai, the savage members of our Army killed, raped, guttered and did other horrible things to innocent people in a village with zero enemy. Not having been satisifed after killing all these women, children and old people, they started killing all the animals and pets. I heard the story of one member of the C Company who said he personally murdered 20 young women and children, after which he went into the bodies and shoved his knife into anyone who cried. After that he looked for the youngest of his victims, cut their ears and made a necklas ouf of it.

    11. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      [from google]

      The objective of the American military mission was clear: search and destroy the My Lai (pronounced, somewhat ironically, "me lie") hamlet of Son My village in the Quang Ngai Province of South Vietnam. What wasn't clear was what to do with any civilians who might be encountered at My Lai. On March 16, 1968, Charlie Company, a unit of the US Eleventh Light Infantry Brigade, was ordered into combat by Captain Ernest Medina. The 150 soldiers, led by Lt. William Calley, stormed into the hamlet, and four hours later more than 500 civilians -- unarmed women, children, and old men -- were dead. Charlie Company had not encountered a single enemy soldier, and only three weapons were confiscated. The only American casualty was a soldier who shot himself in the foot. It was a massacre that would haunt the conscience of the US Army and the American people. However, it seems to have been forgotten.

      The average age of soldiers in Charlie Company was twenty; they had been in South Vietnam for three months. Trained in Hawaii, the unit was considered one of the best in the army. William Calley, aged 24, was not particularly popular with the men he led. Small in stature, he was considered nervous and excitable and too gung ho -- always trying to impress his superiors. Captain Medina ridiculed Calley, calling him Lieutenant Shithead in front of the troops.

      When the soldiers in Charlie Company pushed into the hamlet, they expected to be locked into fierce combat with a Viet Cong battalion believed to be at My Lai. For three months the American unit had been in no major battles but had suffered a lot of casualties from snipers, mines, and booby traps. The soldiers were ready to prove themselves, ready to exact revenge on the enemy.

      Charlie Company met no resistance; there were no Viet Cong soldiers at My Lai. Calley then ordered the slaughter of the civilians. People were rounded up into ditches and machine-gunned. They lay five feet deep in the ditches; any survivors trying to escape were immediately shot. When Calley spotted a baby crawling away from a ditch, he grabbed her, threw her back into the ditch, and opened fire. Some of the dead were mutilated by having "C Company" carved into their chests; some were disemboweled. One GI would later say, "You didn't have to look for people to kill, they were just there. I cut their throats, cut off their hands, cut out their tongues, scalped them. I did it. A lot of people were doing it and I just followed. I just lost all sense of direction."

      Flying high above the slaughter was helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson. Sickened by what he was witnessing, Thompson set down his aircraft and began to rescue the Vietnamese survivors. he ordered his machine gunner to open fire on any American soldiers who continued to shoot villagers. In one ditch, Thompson pulled out a three-year-old child, almost smothered in blood, but not injured. After he radioed for help from other helicopters, an enraged Thompson reported to his section leader and in graphic detail told of what he had seen. Soon afterward, Charlie Company was ordered to stop killing civilians.

      Coverup of the massacre began immediately. Reports on the My Lai operation stated that it was a stunning combat victory against a Viet Cong stronghold. Stars and Stripes, the army newspaper, ran a feature story applauding the courage of the American soldiers who had risked their lives. Even General William Westmoreland sent a personal congratulatory note to Charlie Company. An initial investigation into My Lai was swift and definitive: My Lai was a combat operation in which twenty civilians had accidentally been killed.

      Too many soldiers knew what had really happened at My Lai. One of them was Ronald Ridenhour, a Vietnam veteran who was not at My Lai but had heard about the operation from several of his friends who had served in Charlie Company. A year after My Lai, Ridenhour wrote a letter about the atrocity and sent it to his congressman, Morris Udall. he also sent a copy of the letter to thir

    12. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      > Furthermore you can't get Hitler's "Main Kampf"

      You can buy the annotated version. But I don't like it too, that you can't read the original book if you want. (The name of the book is "Mein Kampf")

      Actually, "Mein Kampf" is not banned, it's just that the state of Bavaria holds the copyright and doesn't allow anything violating that. Journalist asks, the Bayerische Staatskanzlei anwers (in German).

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    13. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by sebmol · · Score: 1
      There are 17 German states,

      Um, there're really just 16.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    14. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by sebmol · · Score: 1

      There is a little more to it than that. If you read all the way to the end, you will see that the state employee also mentions, that the content of the book may violate German law.

      For all intents and purposes, distributing unambigiously neo-nazi and fascist material with the intent of removing the basic democratic order, whether expressed or implied, is illegal and will be punished by the courts. That's not a new thing. It's actually been that way since 1949. And, personally, I don't mind it.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    15. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Jadrano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a way, I understand the US position that freedom of speech should not be restricted in any way. Many people of the left are sceptical about the fight against extremist right-wing propaganda - right-wing extremism, which few people like, can be used as an excuse to introduced repressive measures that will also be used against the left. As soon as freedom of speech is restricted, it's a dangerous slope.

      However, I do think it is right that neo-Nazi propaganda is illegal in European countries - not just in Germany, but they have the strictest laws. Even nationalist and radical right-wing propaganda should be legal. In the case of texts that say that the policies of the Nazis who murdered millions of people and that something similar should be started again, I find it, however, right that an exception is made. Among those most active against neo-Nazi and antisemitic websites are organisations of children of survivers of the holocaust, and I find their concerns must be taken seriously (even if they sometimes go too far).

      What I also find important in that context is that, in contrast to many laws that have been introduced recently in many countries for the 'war against terror', the restriction of Nazi propaganda is not a new tendency towards more repression, Nazi propaganda has been illegal since the defeat of the Nazis in WW II, and it was a historical necessity (the Americans as one of the occupying powers who liberated Europe from the Nazis hardly objected this ban then). It is important that the ban on Nazi propaganda isn't used as a starting point for more restrictions on the freedom of expression, but as long as it remains an exception for an exceptional ideology that caused such enormous suffering and deaths, there are good reasons to keep it.

      The other examples are completely unrelated, and I don't find them convincing. I don't know any other country except Germany where on most parts of highways, there isn't any speed limit, at all. If some more are introduced, this is necessary to prevent accidents and save lives, and the same goes for alcohol limits for drivers. Germany is in no way leading there, in many countries, there are currently attempts to diminish accidents with such measures.
      As far as smoking is concerned, there are, indeed, more restrictions than there used to be, but again this is an international development for which there are health reasons, and smoking is much less restricted in Germany than in places like California, New York or Turkmenistan (and although tobacco taxes are rised, cigarettes are still cheaper in Germany than in Great Britain, Scandinavian countries and the US).

    16. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      And she also mentions that it is legal to buy and own it.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    17. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Homology · · Score: 1
      Germany has a long list of incidents of restricting the peoples right to access information and entertainment by claiming to protect youth and society.

      Well troll, pray tell me, why do the German state fund the Open Source project Anonymity is not a Crime (JAP)? Go have a look at FAQ Concept. In particular, note that JAP project also provides anonymity and protection from observation against the operator

      I'm pretty certain such a project won't get funding by DARPA today.

    18. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh you forgot about Mallorca...

    19. Re:That doesn't solve all problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You might now think that Germany is the land of the sane and bright, but this isn't true.
      In fact in some German states ISP are required to use censorship filters to filter content which is showing disrespect to human dignity like infamous rotten [rotten.com] or neo nazi propaganda.

      On the other hand, in Germany, the Church of Scientology is recognized as the business it is, not as a religion.

  23. Hey Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop burning our karma!

    1. Re:Hey Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      no, i read



      DEEP LICKING ...


      you can probably tell I was very happy to hear that...

  24. Thank you by Vryl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the only sane argument about this. Laws or court cases against deep linking are moronic. It is a public network. You have advertised an address, and you knew what that meant when you did it.

    You are not being co-erced into putting content on the network, and the consequences of putting up content are obvious to all.

    1. Re:Thank you by dirk · · Score: 1

      This is the only sane argument about this. Laws or court cases against deep linking are moronic. It is a public network. You have advertised an address, and you knew what that meant when you did it.
      You are not being co-erced into putting content on the network, and the consequences of putting up content are obvious to all.


      While I agree with your position (and this same position has been put out by many), I wonder how you feel about spam. It seems the same arguement would apply to spam. You have a public email address, that means anyone can email you, even if you don't ask them to (providing they do not have fake headers, abuse an open relay, etc). Once you put your address on the internet, you know you will get email.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    2. Re:Thank you by arose · · Score: 1

      If tyhey would send a personlised email for every "customer" I say let spam be. Deep linking is not DOSing you know.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    3. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The web is pull content while email is push content. There is a huge difference.

    4. Re:Thank you by Vryl · · Score: 1

      This is a good point. The ex-Intel guy finally won his court case, arguing more or less that exact point. Intel were trying to stop him sending email to their employees.

      According to your definition (no fake headers), I have no real problem with it, nor should spammers have any problem with anti-spam measures (there are some braindead cases of spammers trying to sue anti-spammers).

      And I don't really care about using open relays. They should not exist, but if they do, people will use them.

      However, I do have a problem with spammers brute-forcing my email address, which has happened. This cannot be construed as publishing an email address. It's like war-dialing for unlisted telephone numbers.

      If I publish an email address, I expect to get contacted. Not much that I can do about that.

  25. AskSlashDot: Results of Total KillingOff of Whites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    What would happen if Whites were not here?
    What would happen if all the whites died tonight in the United States??

    It comes suddenly with no warning, a plague comes and kills every single white person in the World. No whites escape... they all die. What happens to the United States? Read on.

    Day 1, morning: The negroes wake up, but sense that something is wrong. There is no radio, no television on the air. Electrical power is partially already gone. Upon venturing out into the world, they notice almost no traffic, no police, no airplanes, almost total silence. Upon the discovery of realizing of this fact, negroids immediately begin to loot all businesses. It is free-for-all. Windows are broken, cars stolen from garages and parking lots, a real big party for the negro starts. They are living it up, it is total anarchy. By the afternoon, most valuables in stores and private homes are looted. Gun stores and liquor stores are among the first to be emptied out.

    Day 1, evening: Electrical power is all but gone, phone service is now gone too. There are no communications, hence they have no idea what happened. Some negroids, the decent ones, are starting to understand the nightmare that is to come. But no one listens to them; they are "Uncle Toms", who have always appreciated life in America. Already black gangs are beginning to rob,rape, and murder at even a higher rate than before. There is no force to stop them. There is no government, no order. It is a great big free party for the negroid... for now.

    During the first week: Looting and anarchy continue, law abiding blacks are already having to defend their houses from looters. But other problems are beginning to appear. There is no fresh milk, no bread, no fresh meats. There is no longer any electricity, therefore a lot of food is already spoiled. Fires are wide spread from looting, and hardly anyone knows how to put them out. A few good honest negroes try, but it is an overwhelming effort. Fresh water from taps is starting to become undrinkable, if it is still flowing.

    By the end of the first month: A food shortage begins to appear. Yes, canned food can still be found but fresh water, milk, bread, and such are non-existant. Gasoline becomes scarce. Also the negroids begin to get bored. No television, radio etc. Some hospitals are still running but with almost no trained staff. The death rate begins to ncrease has simple illness, pregnancy, and the like are poorly treated at best. Youths form even more gangs from boredom. Garbage and sanitation services are gone, and now diseases from these sources begin to rise. Rats multiply. A few law-abiding blacks try to restore order and resort to a shoot-on-site policy. Civil war begins amongst black gangs as they battle for territory and vanishing resources.

    By the end of the first year: Starvation is rampant. Food becomes the most valuable thing in the "new" Negroid America. Fires are rampant everywhere, especially in the colder states due to lack of heat and electricity. Trees are cut down for firewood. Many die from cold. Diseases also are rampant, malnutrition is everywhere. Most infants born do not survive, as medical care becomes non-existant. A few blacks hoard all the food for themselves by use of force (just like africa today). There is no light at night, except from wood fires. The negroids begin to reorganize by tribes, in small pockets. Gangs rule the cities completely. It is hell. Travel is almost impossible, except on horseback, and travelers are frequently murdered by gangs. It is hell.

    By the end of 5 years: Nearly 2/3rds of the blacks are now dead. The life span is down to about 45 years, as it is in many black countries in africa today. There are some tribal governments, but no United States as we know it. The money system being gone years ago, is now replaced by a barter system. Crime is still a major problem and there is practically no justice system. Mob rule and vigilante justice prevail. Youths engage in dueling, to prove their manhood. Nomads now roam from destroyed town to town looking for food. Farm animals have all been slaughtered. Medicines are now gone. The US has become Africa, only worse, for there are no white men to organize aid to feed them. It is indeed now an animal-like society now.

  26. * SPOLIER * by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Trinity is Lukes mother at the end of T3!

    1. Re:* SPOLIER * by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      No! That's not true! That's impossible!

  27. Some interesting and similiar cases: by BlueTrin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Deep linking illegal under EU law, By Andy McCue, Computing [26-01-2001]

    Danish Court Rules Deep Linking Illegal

    Some examples of companies who forbid deep linking (the last link is full of stupid examples, some websites which would get a great benefit for their popularity from deep linking

    --
    Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
  28. An english link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative


    I saw the notice at Links&Law.com.

  29. You have no clue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    T3 has nothing to do with the matrix movies.
    In T3 it's revealed that Sauron is Frodo's father.

    1. Re:You have no clue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it Sowron?

      On the same topic, a "Sau" is a pig in German :)

    2. Re:You have no clue. by u-238 · · Score: 1

      try "Schwein" there cheif

  30. Re:They're nuts. Deep Linking = GREAT traffic sour by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Yeah, what would happen if everyone had to cruise the net rather than picking up the important but deep-linked news and information that I post in my .sig?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  31. Re:They're nuts. Deep Linking=GREAT traffic source by SCY.tSCc. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Deep linking almost always generates only one hit/page impression/whatever you like to call it per user while a visitor that starts out on the homepage is likely to generate more than two clicks.

    Remember, most sites use banner ads as a way to earn money and every hit means more money to them. Guess why so many news site just have a teaser of their articles on the homepage? Yes, to make you click on that link that provides you the full story and generates them another hit.

    bye,
    Settel

  32. Oh God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just stumbled out of bed and loaded slashdot... I think maybe I shouldn't be awake yet...

    I saw this headline and read it for a moment as "Deep Drinking Legal in Germany"

    And my response was... yeah... obviously.. so?

  33. Re:They're nuts. Deep Linking=GREAT traffic source by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But that one click is one more click than they would have got.

    The whole point is that deep linking drives somebody to your site that would never have come by were it not for that deep link - i.e. you do not have the opportunity to generate the 2 clicks that you talk about.

    You have the opportunity on the end of that one click to capitalise on it and entice the visitor into the rest of your site.

  34. Not good news for webmasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    So they made it OK to steal from advertisers and webmasters in Germany.. What's next, making ad-blocking legal? Scumbags.

    ---- visit www.antiadblocker.com for all your solutions for theif-proofing your website ---

    1. Re:Not good news for webmasters by viggen · · Score: 1

      What you mean steal? Every single article page of Handelsblatt got banners from advertisers. Most of which never ever would have been visited in the first place, if it wasnt available at services like paperboy or google news or similar. To talk about stealing by providing a headline with two lines and the link to the article is beyond me.

    2. Re:Not good news for webmasters by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      That company's doing well:

      An error occured while loading
      http://www.antiadblocker.com:
      Unknown host www.antiadblocker.com

      whois says the domain name is in "redemption period"

    3. Re:Not good news for webmasters by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

      It is always was OK to "steal" from architects
      by making photos (or even painting pictures and putting them into museums) of buildings build at the side of public streets.

      Why it should be different with sites on the public
      network?

      I'd rather say that it is very bad news for common
      sence that people who filed those insane lawsuits
      are not put into asylum immediately as completely
      insane, and insead are allowed to defend their positon and even sometimes win,

  35. very much sense in fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know the EU regulations for the import of caramel-drops? 25911 words

  36. And in Denmark by Snaller · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...it was ruled illegal. Because they said, because of EU rules. Which of the countries will have to change?

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:And in Denmark by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a German, "Vee haf vays too make yoo change yoor laws."

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    2. Re:And in Denmark by Snaller · · Score: 1

      LOL :)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    3. Re:And in Denmark by etyam · · Score: 1

      In The Netherlands it is legal. IIRC the judges here noted that if a company wants his ads shown anyway, just put them on the deep-linked page.

  37. Re:Please consider Robots.txt doesn't always work by securitas · · Score: 1


    Adding a robots.txt file won't necessarily work. Google's bots do follow the instructions in the robots.txt file but there are lots of sites that don't. Following the instructions in the file is a common convention, not a hard and fast rule/requirement.

    Robots.txt is ignored by the more unscrupulous sites and bots so other measures have to be taken in those cases.

  38. Re:AskSlashDot: Results of Total KillingOff of Whi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hm. Even if your implicit statement about blacks was true, you are neglecting a few important points:

    1) There are plenty of black police, firemen, utility workers, politicians, etc. out there. Your scenario would not happen simply because of this fact.

    2) You fail to take into account the fact that the United States does not exist in a vacuum. If this kind of catastrophe were to come about, aid from other countries would come almost immediately (if for no other reason than to stake a claim here politically).

  39. Re:Its Nice to see that someone has some sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enforcement "nightmare"? All the most reason for more police. In the new world order, this will be important.

  40. Search engines? by BenjyD · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wouldn't preventing deep-linking destroy the use of search engines? What would Google do - provide a link to the front page and directions?

    "On the main page, scroll down half way and click on the small link on the right hand side. Close the resulting pop-up and scroll down to the bottom of the next page. Follow the second link from the right and you will find the content you are looking for."
  41. GNAA... today! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    Join GNAA Today! GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
    gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

    Are you GAY?
    Are you a NIGGER?
    Are you a GAY NIGGER?

    If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
    Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
    GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

    Why not? It's quick and easy - only 2 simple steps!

    First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it.

    Second, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
    Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

    If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.

    If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

    This post brought to you by a proud member of GNAA
    ________________________________________________
    | ______________________________________._a,____ |
    | _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
    | __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
    | _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
    | _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
    | ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
    | _________#1__________?________________________ |
    | _________j1___________________________________ |
    | ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ |
    | ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
    | ______-"!^____________________________________ |
    ` _______________________________________________'
    gnaa representative #644437

  42. (-1, Off-topic) by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Deep linking into an existing site and caching a site without its permission are two totally different things, technically, ethically and legally. Please try to stay on topic.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  43. Re:One noteworthy point not mentioned in the /. st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    That could be as simple as using the referrer= tag

    1. It's not a tag, it's an HTTP header.
    2. It's not 'referrer', it's 'referer'.
    3. The syntax it appears in is 'Referer: xxx', no = anywhere.

    Agreed on the general "use technical methods before the law" approach though.

  44. If they're worried that deep links bypass their... by rokzy · · Score: 0

    adverts, then don't worry, I use Firebird to block pop-ups and most adverts so I'm not going to see them anyway. even if I did I'd never buy from them or anyone affiliated with them after the b!tches they've been.

  45. smoking ? by wotevah · · Score: 1

    [...] and smoking is made illegal in more and more places.

    What does smoking have anything to do with a free society at all ? I really hate when people are throwing in their own agenda in an otherwise acceptable argument. Makes the whole argument sound lame.

    1. Re:smoking ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT

  46. Re:Its Nice to see that someone has some sense by lionelhutz_esq · · Score: 1

    DRMS

  47. Ah by Bobke · · Score: 1

    I thought in Europe this question was already answered in court in the Netherlands. Maybe I should add german headlines to my deeplinking galore site krantenkoppen.be now?

  48. international by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

    No one can accuse Slashdot of being US-centric today, with news from Australia, France and Germany all on the front page!

    1. Re:international by Homology · · Score: 1
      No one can accuse Slashdot of being US-centric today

      Exactly, just today ;-)

  49. germany rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to go, i love the way german politics are going.

    DEUTSCHLAND UBER ALLES please ;-)

    1. Re:germany rules by flippah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It isnt all that great here in good old germany. Sometimes we are lucky and have a judge who knows the matter.

      But on the other hand, software patents are going to come etc.

      There is still enough to be done here.

  50. Highest Court by Hank+Chinaski · · Score: 2, Informative

    In fact the Bundesgerichtshof is not really the highest court in Germany. It can be overruled by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (www.bverfge.de) which is similiar to the US supreme court i guess.

    --
    IAAL
    1. Re:Highest Court by CubicDDD · · Score: 1
      In fact the Bundesgerichtshof is not really the highest court in Germany. It can be overruled by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (www.bverfge.de) which is similiar to the US supreme court i guess.

      Close, but not exact. AFAIK, the Bundesgerichtshof is the highest Court, but for cases which touch a right/law stated in the "Verfassung" (Germany's Constitution) you can go to the Bundesverfassungsgericht. They have the power to decide that a law is illegal (against the constitution)

      During the last several years there was a huge increase in cases decided by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, mainly because all those politicians who say "Hey, that law is from our opposing party, lets try to block/stop/whatever it."
    2. Re:Highest Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bundesverfassungsgericht

      WTF is that -- some kind of German roadside sobriety test?

  51. Whatever happened to by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Referrer authorization?

    Learn to use the Internet. It's cheaper than learning to use the Courts.

  52. Your Own Disclaimer or whatever... by vigilology · · Score: 1
    Junkbusters adds the following header every time you make a request:

    NOTICE=TO_WHOM_IT_MAY_CONCERN_Do_not_send_me_any_c opyrighted_information_other_than_the_document_tha t_I_am_requesting_or_any_of_its_necessary_componen ts._In_particular_do_not_send_me_any_cookies_that_ are_subject_to_a_claim_of_copyright_by_anybody._Ta ke_notice_that_I_refuse_to_be_bound_by_any_license _condition_(copyright_or_otherwise)_applying_to_an y_cookie.

    Wouldn't it be a good idea to add one that says, "By sending me data that I requested, you forfeit your right to legal action..." or something?

  53. Re:They're nuts. Deep Linking=GREAT traffic source by Jadrano · · Score: 1

    First, in most cases, the alternative in most cases is not one click (with deep linking) or more (when starting from the home page), but people seeing a page (when news search engines link to it) or not. Most people only read few newspapers completely and would not read articles from other newspapers if there wasn't a link to a topic they're interested in.
    But I would also dispute that deep linking necessarily makes people see fewer pages - perhaps there are studies investigating visitors' behaviour. Many good news sites have links to related articles on their pages, and often when I arrive at one page from Google news search (or sometimes Paperboy.de), I look at other pages of the same site, as well. I think news sites should be glad that with deep linking from news search engines, they already know something about the fields of interests of a visitor. If someone goes to the home page, they don't know to which articles to link most prominently.

    Some people will only read the page to which the search engine links, but they would hardly explore a news site starting from the home page, anyway. Those who want to read more probably often read more pages when they start with one article that interests them and see links to related articles (and, of course, they always can go to the home page with one click, as well).

  54. Missing the point? by smokeslikeapoet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it just me or are companies that discourage deep linking missing the whole point of the internet. Most web sites have severely limited and dumb search capabilities on their own or no search feature at all. Making me spend more than a minute searching on your website is just going to piss me off. The whole purpose of a website is for people to visit it and glean information from it. Preventing people from doing this is wasted capital. It's kinda like having 10 or 12 entrances to a shopping mall, but only allowing customers to use the main entrance.

    1. Re:Missing the point? by NumbThumb · · Score: 1
      Most web sites have severely limited and dumb search capabilities


      Sites such as /.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
  55. Re:Please consider Robots.txt doesn't always work by bwt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you have a robots.txt entry and somebody ignores it, then you should have a good case to sue them. If you don't have a robots.txt entry and somebody relies on it, you should have no case to sue.

    Hopefully, the legal standard will be that when you choose a particular technolgy to disseminate your works, that the documents that define that technology become legally binding. In other words, the law should reinforce the technology.

  56. Hey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try "Chief" there, Schwein.

  57. This attitude isn't that unusual for some websites by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They're nuts. Deep Linking = GREAT traffic source

    The attitude of Handelsblatt unfortunately does not seem to be that unusual, at least not in Germany. I remember having to work with a large marketing and design agency on a web project (the small agency I was working for was doing the website, the other agency -- the biggest in our area -- did the print marketing and was trying to also lecture us on how to do the site).

    First they criticized the fact that we had a full navigation on every page of the site -- in their view people should page through the site like a magazine.

    Secondly they wanted to force people to start at the homepage and work from there.

    They apparently thought of websites as being literally just a form of magazine or book -- you start at the beginning and page through to the end. I remember arguing with them vociferously that that was wrong, since it threw away all the advantages of the Web (I said it was akin to putting a radio ad on TV with no video) and also explained the principle of deep linking -- to which they reacted with horror and practically demanded we block deep linking, by lawsuits if necessary (WTF?).

    Given that the client's site was for a major German utility company with loads of info for customers, deep linking made all the sense in the world -- much more so than many other sites (since news sites, etc. would link directly to pages with promotions and so on).

    In the end we carried the day by arguing our position with the client's marketing director (who seemed to "get it" in general, even if he had some bizarre suggestions, like doing the entire ~1000-page site in Flash -- thank God we didn't do that).

    OTOH that other agency was also pretty damned clueless about a lot of other things -- proof that large agencies often aren't large because of the quality of their work, but just because the PHBs have all the right connections. *sigh*

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
  58. That makes sense to me by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 1

    ...is that the rulin states that if the owner of a web site wants to prevent deep linking, it may feel free to use technical measures to prevent it. (That could be as simple as using the referrer= tag.) It goes on to state that circumventing technical measures designed to prevent deep-linking very well may be illegal (and that they'd rule on that if and when it comes up.)

    Which in a way is sensible enough -- if someone really really really doesn't want people to link to individual pages in their site, as copyright holders in a sense it is their right to do so. It's their content and their site. I find it to be idiotic to do that, but if someone is dumb enough to do it that way, well, whatever. I'll just go elsewhere.

    Note that preventing deep linking wouldn't keep you from accessing the content -- just adds a (idiotic and unneeded, but still "legal") hurdle that can be overcome by clicking through the site, and you can just copy the text from your browser. BFD. If they want to be idiots, there's no one forcing you to read their site. Go somewhere where they understand what the Web is for instead.

    Like others have pointed out, deep linking is actually a great way to get eyeballs onto your site -- people otherwise might not visit it to begin with. Who knows? That one deep link might let Joe User know your site even exists and has content he finds interesting, and so they keep coming back for more. Why make them hunt for the content?

    Ah, well. You can't stop site owners from being stupid...

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
  59. Re:Wrong dept. - sprechen sie deutsch? by Man+of+E · · Score: 1
    Shouldn't it be from the-no-shit-dept. ?

    Or rather, from the keine-scheisse department...

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig
  60. Truth is much more interesting by werdna · · Score: 1

    Note the different uses of terms "deep linking not illegal" and "deep linking illegal." The truth is almost always more interesting. Although some early cases in the UK (Shetland Times was it?) seemed to suggest courts might consider deep linking to be a form of IP violation, nobody seems to have taken this point terribly seriously as a general principal.

    This does not mean that deep linking is somehow a blessed activity that can not give rise to liability, the HTML:

    <A HREF="http://their.support.site">See my support site for further information</A>

    or "See the sight of the murderer" or the like might well give rise to claims for unfair competition or defamation under appropriate circumstances. Thus, while deep linking, without more, is probably not actionable in most contexts, there are always going to be contexts where a deep link can be entirely actionable.

  61. wow... by nametaken · · Score: 1


    I can't even imagine the implications this could have on slashdot if it were in regard to US/UK sites.

    ...or even the slashdot effect multiplier on the sites linked to.

  62. Educational tool by Yanna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can you get to know your enemy if you are not allowed to access their content?

    How can adults keep the memory of the horror alive if they are not allowed to read it and discuss it and above all, use their critical thinking capabilities?

    If someone tells me that something is "bad", I feel compelled to go and check by myself. If I am told that something is bad, but I am not allowed to validate that information, then I tend to grow suspicious.

    While I wouldn't recommend that this book is allowed to any person younger than 18 without parental/ adult supervision, I would probably make it mandatory reading in every school (particularly in the last year of high school). I would make it a mandatory alert course on the evils of propaganda and the results of racism.

    Informed adults make wiser and more matured decissions than people who are ruled by a baby sitter goverment.

    1. Re:Educational tool by martin-k · · Score: 1
      I know. It's a tough call.

      I think the Bavarian government made the best of a bad situation. They inherited the rights, and they seem to get lots of reprinting inquiries from around the world. Not to talk about illegal reprints from companies that don't even bother to ask ...

      What the Bavarian government allows is annotated/commented issues of Mein Kampf. Maybe that's the smartest way to deal with it.

  63. German Legal System by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The BGH is the highest court in Civil matters. It is the end of any legal argument in civil matters.

    There is also the BVerfG, which is the court, who decides about Constitutional and basic rights issues with final authority. But unless the Handelsgruppe can show that the current judgement by the BGH violated their constitutional rights in a serious way, the BVerfG will never have to decide this case.

    The American Supreme Court is a combination of the two. Remember the US Constitution was one of the first real constitutions, so the power to decide Constitutional cases was just put in the hands of the highest normal court.

    --
    Moritz
  64. How to work around restrictions by kasperd · · Score: 1
    Assume deep links was actually made illegal. There would be a simple technical way to avoid them and still get the same functionality:
    1. Somebody register a domain for the purpose.
    2. DNS records are set up such that any hostname under the domain points to the same IP address.
    3. A webserver is set up on that IP address.
    4. The webserver when receiving a request decodes the hostname into a URL.
    5. The webserver replies with a HTTP 301 or 302 redirection.
    --

    Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  65. The reason behind it all by spike+it · · Score: 1

    German advertisers are upset that their annoying popups and advertisements won't be seen if deep linking is allowed.

  66. Problems of German society? by chl · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You might now think that Germany is the land of the sane and bright, but this isn't true.

    As a German, I cannot really disagree with that. Still, I find Germany a nice country to live in because enough of us are sane and/or bright.

    In fact in some German states ISP are required to use censorship filters to filter content which is showing disrespect to human dignity like infamous rotten or neo nazi propaganda. [...] Germany has a long list of incidents of restricting the peoples right to access information and entertainment by claiming to protect youth and society.

    Historically, some forms of hate speech are forbidden out of a desire not to repeat certain experiences that happened in the 1930s and 1940s. Our allied-approved constitution still says "There is no censorship". Of course it was very silly that KISS have a different logo in Germany because it is forbidden to use the runic SS script, which is also a symbol for the SS murderers.

    So sales of Doom, Quake and Command and Conquer 3 are extremely restricted like hardcore bukkakke porn.

    They may not be advertised nor sold to minors. This is hardly extreme. It is also practically useless in stopping minors to get such stuff.

    The public rights are slowly getting more and restricted. In this picture it fits that the limits for consumed alcohol before driving are steadly lowered, speed limits are spreading like salmonella, the weapon laws are more and more restricted and smoking is made illegal in more and more places.

    How are drunk driving and poisoning people public rights? There still is no general speed limit on the motorways and I have no sympathy for people who complain about getting caught for speeding.

    I agree, however, with your sentiments for the new weapon law. It is practically impossible to legally own a firearm for self defense in Germany. I can only guess that the public allows this because most people do not feel threatened enough by criminals that they feel in need of a gun. And our violent crime rate is relatively low.

    chl

  67. How to tell if you're a fucking idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations want to control everything they can, as long as that control makes them more money. And they don't care about human rights or the Constitution or anything else but money.

    Imagine you set up a shop on a public street. Then, WTF? People can come to your store from other stores? They can comparison shop? Then, WTF? The can leave your store and go to another store? This must be stopped! Corporations must be able to ensure that, if you want visit their store, they have COMPLETE control over the whole experience.

    The only reason you can't do that with real roads is that people would bitch. And the only reason people would bitch about that and not about deep linking is that those people are either unwilling or unable to abstract. Just like some people would be perfectly happy for the police to plant evidence on people who they 'knew' were up to no good, but couldn't prove it. But those people can't abstract that to themselves being a wrongfully prosecuted 'criminal'.

    This are a lot of fucking idiots on /. There are also a lot of smart people on /. Here's how to tell the difference.

    If you are able to abstract and say, "This law is no good because of the principle," then you are one of the smart ones. If you are unable to abstract and say things like, "I agree with the law in principle, but it should be used here and here, but not there and there," then you are a fucking idiot. Freedom of speech when you agree with the speech is not freedom of speech. The right to privacy as long as you are in your bedroom is not a right to privacy. The right to freedom from illegal search and seizure except when someone thinks you may be a terrorist is no right.

    1. Re:How to tell if you're a fucking idiot. by flibuste · · Score: 1

      The right to freedom from illegal search and seizure except when someone thinks you may be a terrorist is no right.

      I think you are a terrorist.

      Can I come search your home now?
      I need to get a a new linux box for free, so since I think you *maybe* a threat, I should allow myself to remove those weapons of mass addiction from you.
      More seriously, it sounds like your last sentence defeats the purpose of your message...

      sig. is feminine - problem fixed
  68. I must be too tired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did I parse the headline as "Keep Drinking Legal in Germany"?

  69. Re:Wrong dept. - sprechen sie deutsch? by Ominous+Coward · · Score: 1

    you, sir, have stolen my sig.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  70. Re:Wrong dept. - sprechen sie deutsch? by lord_nightrose · · Score: 0

    Yes, but he fixed it for you: Ceci n'est pas une sig. versus Ceci ne pas un sig. You should be thanking him.

    --
    This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
  71. Re:This attitude isn't that unusual for some websi by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Far as I can tell, it's not even a German issue, but simply an issue of "what happens when you get one PHB, two clueless marketroids and a couple of retarded graphics artists in charge of making the site."

    Neither of the types in that mix have half a clue that people go to the site for the information, and not for the bullshit. Taken in random order:

    - Graphics artists. A lot of graphics artists see it all as making art. They don't know, nor care, about usability of that site, or about the visitors' need to get to the actual information, or such. They want their work of art reproduced as such at all cost, regardless of how much their favourite colours offend the eye, their font is unreadable, and that funky illogical page arrangement leaves the user disoriented and confused.

    Point in case: such a graphics artist turned PHB dictated that a page have dark-ish orange on lighter orange as a colour scheme. He also wanted it displayed in a 640x480 pixel window that the user can't resize. And it had 250K worth of graphics, plus about 150k worth of rollovers. (I'm not making this up!)

    We called him "the Antichrist."

    - Marketroids. These are often nice people, but are trained to do one thing: get people's attention to a product. E.g., they're great at making posters and brochures and other ads.

    But they often fail to understand a very basic thing: web sites are _not_ ads. If people already came to your page, you already _have_ their attention, FFS. Now they want the actual info. If you only force them to wade through more marketing bullshit, they'll go away.

    This is usually the kind of people who insist that the user _must_ click through ten marketing bullshit pages before they get to what interests them.

    - PHB. Even when he's not really retarded, life as a PHB in a corporation isn't as easy for him as you think. The name of the game is: ass covering. Corporations don't like personal initiative. They like mindless droids who unquestioningly obey the rules and "strategic decisions" from above. Even when the PHB is really a bright guy, to stay a PHB he'll have to convince his superiors that he's a mindless droid.

    Whenever said PHB actually makes a decision, he has to have the paper trail and everything to show his superiors that he did everything by the book. Or better yet, that he _didn't_ in fact take any decision himself, and merely supervised that everything be done _exactly_ as someone else decided.

    So he'll just take the retarded design from the graphics artists and marketroids, and insist that everything must match those artists' screenshots with pixel accuracy. No PHB ever got fired for counting pixels, as their _only_ contribution to the project.

    In case he does actually request a change of his own, it will be an easily defendable decision. E.g., insisting that the web site obeys the same style guidelines as the company's brochure. Never mind that it's a retarded decision, since the two don't serve the same purpose and aren't in the same medium. (The brochure doesn't make the user wait while a megabyte of graphics downloads on dialup.) But it's an easily defensible decision. If any superior questions it, the PHB can argue that he was merely obeying the rules and regulations from above. Noone ever got fired for that.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  72. In defense of designers... by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 1
    Graphics artists. A lot of graphics artists see it all as making art. They don't know, nor care, about usability of that site, or about the visitors' need to get to the actual information, or such. They want their work of art reproduced as such at all cost, regardless of how much their favourite colours offend the eye, their font is unreadable, and that funky illogical page arrangement leaves the user disoriented and confused.

    In defense of graphic designers (since I am one): graphic designers are normally trained to understand that good print or web design normally means legibility and ease of use. (I say "normally" because there are always exceptions.)

    Yes, there are bad designers out there -- lots of 'em. There are also lots of bad programmers and developers and PHBs. You can't tar all designers (or programmers or for that matter PHBs) with the same brush.

    I would also bet that sites that do have trained designers will, by and large, be better and clearer than sites done by someone with no design training. Same goes for UI design -- a designer can be a lot of help in making good icons and suggestions for ease of use. Unfortunately, it often seems that everyone thinks they're a designer, or that design is easy (I'm tired of people telling me "Hey, I'm good at Photoshop, too!", as if that means anything). So many sites don't have honest-to-God designers, or they take just anyone they get their hands on (and pay accordingly).

    I generally try to do sites pretty much as you describe -- have a clear and easy-to-use navigation, and legible fonts (on all platforms -- Windows, Mac and UNIX/Linux) without too much cruft. And have the pages be scalable so that they work on pretty much any monitor (though getting sites to look good on, say, a 22" monitor and on a handheld is damned near impossible under most circumstances...). And have the sites be compatible with as many browsers as possible, without plugins (unless there is no way around using them -- sometimes Flash or QuickTime does make sense on a site).

    Sometimes, though, sites I work on just don't work out because of unrealistic expectations on the part of the client -- sometimes clients insist on having things (or not having things) regardless of how senseless they might be. And at the end of the day, the customer is always right...

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
    1. Re:In defense of designers... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      I did say "A lot of graphics artists", and not "all graphics artists".

      I do know that there are people with plenty of clue about accessibility. Graphic artists, marketroids, PHBs, you name it. There are bright people among any of those.

      I'd also like to say that there's a distinction between trained "web designer" and trained only as "graphics artist". Hence, why I spoke about the second category, not the first. The first usually tends to have clue about good web design. The second often tends to have the issue that his competence ends where Photoshop ends.

      Basically the whole point I was trying to make is that that exaample commitee deciding the layout... actually _doesn't_ have a qualified web designer. They have pure graphics artists and marketeers instead. That's the whole problem. Noone in that example commitee has the competence to make a good site.

      Sure, marketeers and graphics artists _are_ necessary in the team anyway. But as workers, not as decision makers. And yes, that goes for the programmers too. (No, I'm not any good at Photoshop.)

      Let a proper designer make the final call, and maybe pair him/her with an usability expert.

      That's all I'm saying.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  73. Re:Wrong dept. - sprechen sie deutsch? by Man+of+E · · Score: 1
    If I had stolen your sig, it would be as misspelled as yours... Of course, if you fix it, I can rightfully claim you stole my sig!

    Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig
  74. RTFA Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I wish you slashdot editors would just read the damn article. I mean, it clearly says:

    BGH: function of stands of the hyperlinks over commercial interests

    That under other things for author right and competition correctly responsibly 1ST. Civil senate of the federal court (BGH) named declared given expected its basic judgment with tension for the question enmity of the competition of so depth to the left well today. Therein the judges place the general interest into the function technology of the hyperlinks of the internet over commercial interests of single announcement participant.

  75. Re:Wrong dept. - sprechen sie deutsch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I wondered for a moment if 'sig' is masculine or feminine in French. If one says 'le sig', then it should be 'un sig', as Ominous Coward posits, however I have been working on the premise that 'la sig' is correct, that is, that 'sig' and 'pipe' are of the same gender for analogy's sake.

    A quick dictionary search reveals that 'signature' in French is feminine, hence its abbreviation 'sig' should also be feminine, leaving 'une sig' as the correct ending for this particular sig. Now that its grammatical correctness has been established, we may go back to wondering about its twisted logic...

  76. Re:Wrong dept. - sprechen sie deutsch? by Man+of+E · · Score: 1
    I wondered for a moment if 'sig' is masculine or feminine in French. If one says 'le sig', then it should be 'un sig', as Ominous Coward posits, however I have been working on the premise that 'la sig' is correct, that is, that 'sig' and 'pipe' are of the same gender for analogy's sake.

    A quick dictionary search reveals that 'signature' in French is feminine, hence its abbreviation 'sig' should also be feminine, leaving 'une sig' as the correct ending for this particular sig. Now that its grammatical correctness has been established, we may go back to wondering about its twisted logic...

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig
  77. Re:They're nuts. Deep Linking = GREAT traffic sour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a newsflash - more visitors mean more COSTS.