Slashdot Mirror


EU Publishers Want a Law To Control Online News

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."

41 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. This won't Work by dmacleod808 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    There Can Be Only One...
    1. Re:This won't Work by RDW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      '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!]"

  2. If you don't want it indexed, then either by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

    2. Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

    3. Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either by Beetle+B. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Beetle B.
    4. Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either by blahplusplus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It goes beyond just selfishness, the whole point of the free market is the buyer chooses of his own will, making a law to force people to pay for something that they don't want and did not choose freely is the anti-thesis of that.

    5. Re:If you don't want it indexed, then either by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really true. Only the minority are truly greedy, those that no matter how much they have always want more. The majority truly do share and care, whilst the greedy minority try to hide their psychopathy behind the claim that the everyone else that struggles for a comfortable place to live, healthy and satisfying food for the family, a future for their children basically trying live healthy and happy life with good neighbours, is somehow greedy, a real lie.

      In this case the fourth estate who sold 'truthiness' to the highest bidder better suck it up, because if the fourth estate is truly protected than it is the truth that the fourth estate can produce that will be protected not the corporations that profit by the abuse of the truth. So protect the 'truth' in the fourth estate, corporations that hide, distort, and downright fabricate the 'truth' should be punished for the harm caused by that deceit, it is the fourth estate that is protected not mass media news as entertainment and advertising, in fact that version of it and it's commentators, corporate talking heads should specifically be targeted, prosecuted and imprisoned for the harm they wilfully caused to fourth estate based upon 'true' psychopathic greed.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  3. What garbage by Dr_Ken · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    "If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
    1. Re:What garbage by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:What garbage by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 3, Funny

      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...

    3. Re:What garbage by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:What garbage by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:What garbage by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:What garbage by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:What garbage by adminstring · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    8. Re:What garbage by julesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, the intelligence Bush got was faulty about the WMDs in Iraq

      There's practically incontrivertible documentary evidence that Bush knew WMDs would not be found and wanted to provoke the war on any grounds he could. (In case you want to talk about political bias and slanting in my sources there, The Guardian is a left-leaning paper, but The Times is a right-leaning paper owned by News Corporation, the same people who own Fox News.)

      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.

      It's amazing how Clinton even managed to cause excessive lending and a property price crash in the UK, where he had no legislative power at all.

      Or perhaps these have nothing to do with governments and everything to do with banks who were too greedy and got their hands burned when the inevitable property price slide (which should have come as no surprise, as financial experts have been predicting it since about 2005) started to happen. Here's news for you: an extra 15% on top of people's loans makes little difference when prices fall by over 30%. Most people who bought close to the top were still in serious financial trouble because of it. And there was no obligation on the banks to take that funding -- if they believed the customer wouldn't be able to repay, they were obligated under various codes of practice (let alone plain and simple commercial sense) not to offer the loan.

      The banks thought they could make loans that they knew had a good chance of never being repaid, bundle them up into financial instruments and sell them for more than they were actually likely to get back. And for a while the scheme worked. But of course, in the end, it failed.

      Obama's plan seems to be lets spend our way out of an economic collapse!

      It's a good plan, to be honest. Government spending has a way of finding its way back to the government via taxes, so isn't as expensive to the economy as it at first appears. And it does get people spending money, which is the whole problem.

      Mixed with tons of regulations.

      Yes. The financial services industry has shown itself to be too irresponsible to be able to manage the significant chunk of the economy it currently does manage. Something needs to be done to tighten that up.

      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 has nothing to do with Obama or any regulations. This is just banks' typical overreaction to any property price crash. The same thing happened in the UK in the late 80s. Banks lose a whole string of money on property development projects that suddenly find themselves in negative equity, so decide not to invest in property development because the entire industry has a huge risk rating associated with it in any statistical analysis. Quite simple, really.

  4. I suppose I will start getting my news... by SUB7IME · · Score: 3, Insightful
  5. Hamburg Declaration by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hamburg Declaration:

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

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Hamburg Declaration by erroneus · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

    2. Re:Hamburg Declaration by shentino · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now that's what I call being a "grammar nazi"

  6. The Internet Says "No" by flydude18 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry.

  7. I wish they'd focus on the news by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I wish they'd focus on the news by Tom+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

    2. Re:I wish they'd focus on the news by samkass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    3. Re:I wish they'd focus on the news by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:I wish they'd focus on the news by FourthAge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
    5. Re:I wish they'd focus on the news by somenickname · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:I wish they'd focus on the news by Tom+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

    7. Re:I wish they'd focus on the news by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  8. People are mis-understanding this issue: by popo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:People are mis-understanding this issue: by Zerth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:People are mis-understanding this issue: by PPNSteve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have 'news' for you;
      News is NOT IP it is facts of something real or that has happened. No company or agency "owns' the news. (only their telling of said news is 'owned' by them, not the news itself.)

      You can't copyright facts.

      --
      PPN
  9. Re:Why is it always draconian? by Tynam · · Score: 3, Informative
    Because Draconian 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.

  10. Re:freedom will not be found in "free" countries by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:Help me Rob Malda you're my only hope! by digitig · · Score: 3, Funny

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

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

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  12. Search engine retaliation by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  13. American newspapers by andersh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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. 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.

  14. Simple depiction by andersh · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    Nope. That's a simple and untrue depiction of my country. If you knew anything about Norway you would know that there is a great deal of variety from arctic Finnmark county to the summer paradise of our southern coastal regions. It's a very long country. You seem to think there's some kind of total winter darkness here? That's only in the far north, the majority of the country experiences four regular seasons. And the winters vary a lot, some regions don't even experience snow.

    You do realize we do not have polar bears in our streets? The last weeks we've had great sunny days with temperatures above 86 F (30 C) - 95 F (35 C). Winters can be cold of course.

    In fact the major factors behind newspaper readership in Norway is the high levels of education, grassroots political and organizational involvement. It helps living in a country where the majority of the population is college educated [for generations], and education is free. Even the least academic workers attend vocational schools here.

    Also volunteering and involvement in organizations from sports clubs to the Red Cross/Lions/Kiwanis is extremely common. Everyone takes part. It helps create debate and involvement on issues and politics from local to national levels. Remember, it's a "socialist" country.

    1. Re:Simple depiction by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Funny

      "You do realize we do not have polar bears in our streets?"

      Bummer, that's one country I won't be going to on my vacation.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  15. Very good point by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And yes, this is annoying to me as well. I think that if there is even one penny of public tax money that goes to the researchers who write these articles, that the entire paper be free to view in its entirety. Those academic paywalls are *most annoying*, especially when even the summaries/abstracts suck and don't tell much. I try to not even tease myself anymore and just use sites like PlOS, etc. Google should have a way to not show paywalls on request. You can do that with the negative modifiers with your search, -elsevier.com, like that, but it's a chore.

        On a side issue, I'd go further and say similar for patents, any public monies used, the patents become public domain.