German Publishers Want Censorship Talks With Apple

An anonymous reader writes "The association of German magazine publishers has sent a letter to Steve Jobs (Google translation; German original here) demanding talks about censorship by Apple. The move draws attention to growing concerns about freedom of the press when a single unelected commercial entity has worldwide control over what gets published for the iPhone and, especially, the iPad." While the magazine publishers may rightly be concerned about private control of a platform that many of them are counting on for their long-term salvation, the German state is at the very least ambivalent about the subject of censorship. This is the country that has banned Wikileaks, sought a ban on violent games, and voted to censor child porn (only to have the president kill the ban as unconstituitonal).

Comments

The internet

[thenextstevejobs]

I'd like to posit that Apple doesn't have complete control over what content is available for the iPhone/iPad, because it has a web browser.

Still, I'd be happy to see an alternative to the App Store or some compromise on their approval process.

Re:The internet

[stealth_finger]

As much as I'm in the anti-apple camp but are they also going to sue microsoft, sony and nintendo for having total control over what goes on their platforms? It's not as if there's no alternative to the iPad, how about an iPed (http://kotaku.com/5549865/china-rips-off-the-ipad-with-the-iped)

"According to this TBS news report, the iPed is on sale in Shenzhen, China. Shenzhen is the location of the largest Foxconn plant, where the iPhone and the iPad are manufactured. The iPed comes packaged in a box that looks like the iPod. While it is slightly heavier than the iPad, the device is powered by an Intel chip and runs on Google's open source operating system Android. But like the iPad, it is a multi-media device.And is priced at the equivalent of ¥9,600 (US$105). The iPad is priced at ¥48,800 ($536) in The Land of the Rising Sun."

Bargain.

Re:The internet

[Hurricane78]

Not yet.
But, thanks! That’s a great idea, that... I just had.

Ok, have to speak to the goons. Gotta go...

Your God Steve.

Re:The internet

[frdmfghtr]

I'd like to posit that Apple doesn't have complete control over what content is available for the iPhone/iPad, because it has a web browser.

And even if Apple did have complete control of what is available on the iPhone/iPad, who cares? Does freedom of speech require me to let you publish whatever you want on my webpage, or my billboard, or on my TV/radio show? Is the iPad your one and only source of media?

To all these questions, there is but one answer: No. You have other options. There is the web, as you pointed out. There are books. There is broadcast TV or radio. Build and market your own e-reader. You can say what you want, publish what you want, but that doesn't obligate anybody particular entity to distribute it.

Re:The internet

[Anonymous Coward]

For book publishers, a variety of options are available - most notablly Amazon has a Kindle app, Kurzweil's Biblio is "and day now", .... All a publisher has to do is offer their work in an industry standard format such as epub, PDF, HTML, or plain old text. Even today, we have different bookstores for folks with different tastes ...

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

I'd like to posit that Apple doesn't have complete control over what content is available for the iPhone/iPad, because it has a web browser.

Does freedom of speech require me to let you publish whatever you want on my webpage, or my billboard, or on my TV/radio show? Is the iPad your one and only source of media?

It's my hardware and my iPad/iPhone/iPod! I should be able to use whatever I want on it. If Apple doesn't want to host certain applications in their store, that's just fine. But they shouldn't block all other sources of applications. That's forcing people to use your particular billboard and qualifies as censorship.

In fact, they've also claimed that jailbreaking is illegal. Another example of how they don't allow us to do whatever we want with our devices.

Re:The internet

[dakameleon]

That's forcing people to use your particular billboard and qualifies as censorship.

If you're going to use a ... billboard analogy, it's more like having the most prominent billboards and refusing to post certain types of ads. Not sure how illegal that is. Furthermore, censorship is usually the domain of the government, not corporations - while there's a right to free speech, I'm not so sure there's an obligation/responsibility to carry/transmit/enable said speech. It's the old "you can go elsewhere" argument - short of the iPhone/iPad ecosystem becoming a dominant monopoly - owning every billboard in town worth owning - it's unlikely to draw the ire of government with any force.

In fact, they've also claimed that jailbreaking is illegal. Another example of how they don't allow us to do whatever we want with our devices.

Technically, circumventing protection measures is in violation of the DMCA, so it is the jailbreaking that is in a legal grey area, not the subsequent use of your own applications. (that on the other hand is likely to be in violation of the licence and terms of use of the device, so you're violating a contract).

(Note: I'm not saying I agree with Apple/Jobs' actions, just pointing out the legal ground isn't quite so clear cut as it's made out to be. Not a lawyer, however.)

Re:The internet

[node 3]

That's forcing people to use your particular billboard and qualifies as censorship.

No one is forced to buy an iPad.

Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all exert similar (actually, much greater) control over their console platforms.

Re:The internet

[Teckla]

Still, I'd be happy to see an alternative to the App Store or some compromise on their approval process.

As a father, the iPad looks appealing to me precisely because you can only get software for the iPad from the App Store.

Less worries about whether any individual app will work (I just had to return a game for my daughter because it would crash if the computer had too much memory - no lie!). One stop shopping...a very high guarantee of compatible apps...very convenient.

Also, my daughter wouldn't be able to accidentally install a virus or Trojan even if she wanted to. One less thing to worry about, which is really great when your time is limited (most parents will understand what I'm talking about). I don't want to baby-sit an anti-virus program or worry that every little click could lead to infection.

Besides being a father, I'm also a software developer, so I understand the whole geek angle pretty well. Maybe for myself, I'll get an Android tablet (some day), because I'll want to do geek-friendly stuff.

It seems to me there's room in the world both for Apple's approach and for alternative approaches (like Android). I like that they work different, because different people have different priorities.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

But I look at it this way: The App Store is a billboard. Other app stores are possible, but apple wants everyone to use only their particular app store and then goes ahead and dictates what can be shown on it. So it's like having the only billboard and making all other billboards illegal.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

But once I buy it its mine. After buying the hardware and software it's not apple's anymore and I want nothing more to do with apple. By making jailbreaking illegal, apple is messing with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.

Re:The internet

[Dragoniz3r]

The thing people don't like is that Apple doesn't give you the choice. Sure, you're the protecting father who doesn't want little Sally installing viruses on her sparkly new iPad. That's great. They should give you parental controls. Those parental controls should be able to be disabled so sleezy Sam can browse all the dark corners of the internet, install all his dubious apps, and play porn games on his iPad.

People don't mind being ABLE to restrict the content that reaches them. They mind when it's some corporation halfway across the USA pushing their social agenda on them*.

* I frankly don't give a shit because I don't have an iAnything, but if I did, I'd care.

Re:The internet

[node 3]

By making jailbreaking illegal, apple is messing with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.

If something is illegal (hint: Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal), and you know that going into it, the only one messing with your rights are yourself for voluntarily giving them away. Unless you have no choice but to buy such a product (such as when states require Word documents or IE, for example, to interact with them).

Jailbreak away, you will not go to jail. Or don't buy an iPad. Or buy one and just use the App Store. It's called freedom. Contrary to many here, Apple has not taken away any of your freedom.

Re:The internet

[frdmfghtr]

People don't mind being ABLE to restrict the content that reaches them. They mind when it's some corporation halfway across the USA pushing their social agenda on them*.

Apple is not pushing a "social agenda." Apple is choosing to not allow certain types of apps into the app store. If you were forced to buy and use certain types of apps only from Apple, then the "social agenda" argument may hold water. As it is, you are under no obligation to buy Apple products, or not buy somebody else's products.

Re:The internet

[Teckla]

The thing people don't like is that Apple doesn't give you the choice.

Sure, and those people can buy Android tablets, WebOS tablets, or some other kind of tablet, when they become available (and they will become available).

As a geek, I look forward to them. As a consumer, I look forward to the competition. But I can also appreciate Apple trying to make devices that are very appealing to a certain segment of the market.

Sure, you're the protecting father who doesn't want little Sally installing viruses on her sparkly new iPad. That's great. They should give you parental controls.

Apple is selling a very specific experience to a very specific market. I don't think they want to muddy their marketing message.

Re:The internet

[icebraining]

the iPed is on sale in Shenzhen, China

What good does that to German consumers?

Not that I agree with this, and it's obvious that it's a move by the magazine publishers to get a cut of the new market.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.

Moreover, I believe that any TOS stripping people of their right to use a product legally bought in any way they wish without hurting others is legally questionable. Are you saying Apple can write anything in their TOS and that if I bought the product I'm legally bound by it? What if they insert a clause saying I have to pay them $10,000 whenever they want?

Re:The internet

[stealth_finger]

They could import I guess, maybe playasia carries them. The point is though there's plenty of alternatives to an iPad so if you don't want a locked down platform, don't buy one.

Re:The internet

[node 3]

Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.

Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.

Moreover, I believe that any TOS stripping people of their right to use a product legally bought in any way they wish without hurting others is legally questionable.

You may believe that, but you'd be wrong.

Are you saying Apple can write anything in their TOS and that if I bought the product I'm legally bound by it?

Absolutely not. Straw Man #2a.

What if they insert a clause saying I have to pay them $10,000 whenever they want?

Depends on the context. Straw Man #2b.

Re:The internet

[dakameleon]

Yes, the App Store is a billboard, but Apple's not the only "billboard seller" out there.

It might be the only one with halogen lighting, say, but there's another billboard just down the block that uses LEDs (in this analogy, Android Market). The halogen billboard is prominent, readable, and displays a single ad, but the LEDs are just as functional and readable most of the time and the LED boards also can post more than one ad at a time, which enables it to be cheaper and more widespread.

People want to get on the halogen-lit board because of its premium "location" and its easy appeal. That doesn't stop "advertisers" from boycotting the halogen-lit boards in favour of the LED boards, but clearly they want to play by the rules because of the cachet it gives them.

You're basically saying someone else should be able to post their own bills on the halogen-lit boards' poles. Some have found a way to do it, but that doesn't mean it's legal.

Probably have now flogged the analogy to death, but the thing you have to remember is that Apple will always be able to argue "if you don't want to play by our rules, go elsewhere." Corporations are allowed to do that, unfortunately, until such time as doing that harms the greater public interest.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.

"Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal". You're implying that Apple is ok with Jailbreaking. If you didn't imply that, what point were you trying to make? If you want to nitpick, I can say that your sentence is a tautology because Apple isn't a lawmaker and can't make anything legal or illegal!

You may believe that, but you'd be wrong.

That's for a court of law to decide.

Absolutely not. Straw Man #2a.

...

Depends on the context. Straw Man #2b.

On the one hand you claim that I'm bound by an objectionable TOS. On the other hand you claim it depends on the circumstances. Can you enlighten us as to what exactly these circumstances are that determine whether or not I'm bound by a TOS?

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

Nice fleshing out of the analogy! But in this case, Apple's preventing anyone else from building their own halogen billboard somewhere else. They say they're the only ones allowed to build halogen billboards anywhere and that's why I have an issue.

Basically they're not allowing anyone else to have an app store for the iPhone. As a person who's just bought the phone, suppose I want to have nothing more to do with Apple after I legally own my device...I should be able to give permission to a third party to install their applications on my device.

I like the billboard analogy!

Re:The internet

[Lars T.]

I'd like to posit that Apple doesn't have complete control over what content is available for the iPhone/iPad, because it has a web browser.

But the German magazine publishers would rather people buy their iPhone/iPad apps.

Re:The internet

[node 3]

"Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal". You're implying that Apple is ok with Jailbreaking. If you didn't imply that, what point were you trying to make?

I was replying to a false statement that you made: "by making jailbreaking illegal, apple is messing with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says." I've never implied Apple is OK with jailbreaking. I'm merely stating that Apple hasn't made it illegal.

If you want to nitpick, I can say that your sentence is a tautology because Apple isn't a lawmaker and can't make anything legal or illegal!

Of course it's a tautology. That's why it so effectively disproves your original assertion. Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal because they can't. But jailbreaking isn't even illegal in the first place. Apple can claim it violates the DMCA all they want (and quite likely, under some circumstances it does), but for the purpose of running third-party apps, it very much is not illegal.

That's for a court of law to decide.

They already have. It's called contracts, and they've been around for thousands of years.

On the one hand you claim that I'm bound by an objectionable TOS. On the other hand you claim it depends on the circumstances. Can you enlighten us as to what exactly these circumstances are that determine whether or not I'm bound by a TOS?

I've never said that anything in a contract is enforceable. Some things are, some aren't. Some are in some circumstances and not in others. It's been that way for a very long time.

Re:The internet

[Mr. Slippery]

Furthermore, censorship is usually the domain of the government, not corporations

No, it is not, and I do wish propertarians would cease this abuse of language. To censor is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable...; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable". It does not matter whether it is the government or a private agency doing the suppression, it is still censorship.

It may be the case that government censorship is more intrusive and threatening to liberty than private censorship, but that does not change the fact that both are members of the same species.

Re:The internet

[Mr. Slippery]

Apple is not pushing a "social agenda."

Apple -- or at least, Steve Jobs -- is pushing a "social agenda" that wants to bring you "freedom from porn". The fact that you are not forced to use Apple products, does not change Jobs/Apple's desire to push said agenda using the means that are at their disposal.

Apple is choosing to not allow certain types of apps into the app store.

Which is not the issue. The issue is Apple's maintenance of a monopoly on content for the devices they manufacture, and it's about time that government anti-trust regulators stir from their naps and examine this issue.

Re:The internet

[Chris Tucker]

So, are you saying if I copy a PDF to an iPad and use Preview to read it, the Apple Ninjas will come in the night and exact Lord Jobs-sama's stark vengeance upon me by dripping poison down a string into my mouth, as I sleep?

Re:The internet

[Lord Kano]

For $105, as soon as I get the chance I'm all over that.

LK

Re:The internet

[Elektroschock]

It is technical censorship. That is something completely different.

Re:The internet

[KDR_11k]

Still counts for the RSF press freedom index, it even includes factors like how many competing news outlets there are (I believe that's what hurts the US score so much). Overall it indicates how free the flow of information is, doesn't matter what entities or effects disturb it, whether it is the only news corp deciding not to report on something or the supplier of software for a major device on the market deciding certain topics are taboo. Even includes stuff like death threats against members of the press.

Re:The internet

[KDR_11k]

AFAIK there is spyware on the app store that will collect personal information from the device.

Re:The internet

[Elektroschock]

RSF are free to write an index as they like. The interesting aspect here is that publishers do not want an open plattform and but want content control. Yet, they do not want censorship.

Re:The internet

[gig]

The Web is the alternative to app store. HTML5 is the original API for iPhone. Your HTML5 app can install locally with a home screen icon very easily. App Store is totally optional.

Re:The internet

[ultranova]

And even if Apple did have complete control of what is available on the iPhone/iPad, who cares? Does freedom of speech require me to let you publish whatever you want on my webpage, or my billboard, or on my TV/radio show? Is the iPad your one and only source of media?

That depends: do you own a sufficient fraction of all billboards, webpages, and TV/radio shows? If you do, then yes, freedom of speech requires just that.

As your wealth and power grows to rival nation-states, you should be held to the same standards as any other government. Why shouldn't you?

To recap: whether iPad is the only source of media is irrelevant; what's relevant is whether it's a significant enough source of media that allowing complete private control over it gives that private entity a dangerous level of power in the society.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

Let's start over.

By trying to make jailbreaking illegal, apple is trying to mess with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.

Some things are, some aren't. Some are in some circumstances and not in others.

I'm saying in this case, Apple's TOS falls into the latter category. And I'm sure a court of law will uphold my inbuilt rights to do what I want with my device.

Re:The internet

[Snaller]

"I'd like to posit that Apple doesn't have complete control over what content is available for the iPhone/iPad, because it has a web browser. "

Which doesn't do Flash. Get the GPadd!

Re:The internet

[John Hasler]

> Basically they're not allowing anyone else to have an app store for the
> iPhone.

How are they stopping you?

Re:The internet

[John Hasler]

> "Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal".

Apple does not have the power to make anything illegal.

> You're implying that Apple is ok with Jailbreaking.

No. he is implying that they can do nothing about it but make their displeasure known.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

How are they stopping you?

By not allowing me to install applications that don't come through the app store? Have you ever used an iPhone?

Re:The internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously going to claim you couldn't have bought a droid, a nokia, a windows phone, or any other smart device? Are you also going to claim you didn't know that Apple had to approve all apps and you were not guaranteed to be able to get App X on the device?

The above statement is absolutely correct. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Problem solved.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

Actually when I decided to buy my iPod Touch as an impulse purchase, I didn't know about the app approval process. If I had, I might not have made the purchase.I just assumed that it would be a mini computer like my PC where I can visit any site I want and download and install anything I want. Like adults do.

I have a problem because Apple wants to dictate what I can run on my device. Don't you see this? Once I buy it it's not apple's anymore. That's why I paid money for it.

Re:The internet

[Anonymous Coward]

You know there are alternative app stores for pretty much all mobile platforms right? Some of which are "children friendly" and / or conservative.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/trivial-security-flaw-in-popular-iphone-app-leads-to-privacy-leak/5935
http://www.mobile-ent.biz/news/35015/Storm8-iPhone-games-pulled-from-App-Store-following-privacy-lawsuit

I pointed out a CONFIRMED malware / spyware and a massive privacy breach app on an iPhone (which were available for a long time before anyone noticed). Could you do the same for any other mobile platform? Could you also point out the trojans and viruses - even if one wanted to - to install on an Android / WinMo / WebOS device?

As Dragoniz3r said, if Apple's corporate ethics stepped up a notch and their review process only eliminated - or even rated for us with a parental lock - I would definitely consider getting their products despite the fact all of their accessories are locked in. As of right now, they have an inconsistent approval process and to be frank, a lot of their press releases outright lie and / or intentionally mislead (and people believe it!). Oh, and it would be nice if they didn't nickel-and-dime the user to death. (Seriously? They're adding folders and home-screen backgrounds 4 major OS revisions later?)

Re:The internet

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, s/he is saying precisely that

Re:The internet

[node 3]

Let's start over.

By trying to make jailbreaking illegal, apple is trying to mess with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.

They aren't trying to make it illegal. They made the claim that it already is if you jailbreak to run pirated apps.

Some things are, some aren't. Some are in some circumstances and not in others.

I'm saying in this case, Apple's TOS falls into the latter category. And I'm sure a court of law will uphold my inbuilt rights to do what I want with my device.

You'll need to be more specific. Apple's TOS almost certainly does not fall into the latter category, although parts most likely fall into the latter in some circumstances.

As for your right to jailbreak, I've never said otherwise, and aside from Apple saying to do so pirate apps violates the DMCA, they've never said it's illegal either.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

They made the claim that it already is if you jailbreak to run pirated apps.

And if I jailbreak without running pirate apps? Surely you're not implying that apple is ok with that? (Cause they're not). In any case, jailbreaking and pirating apps need to be dealt with separately because I can jailbreak without pirating anything.

Apple's TOS almost certainly does not fall into the latter category...

Any part of their TOS that stops me from doing what I want with my device will not stand up to legal scrutiny - and I'm willing to bet on this. Since neither of us can look into the future, we'll just have to wait and see. But I have faith that common sense will win out in the long run.

To end this, filing comments as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking regarding jailbreaking constitutes "trying" in my book. If they just wanted to make a statement they could have issued a press release.

If you read Page 11 section A of their filing you'll see this: "Jailbreaking Results in Copyright Infringement". The subsection A makes no mention of pirated apps meaning that apple is against jailbreaking per se and not just in connection with pirated apps.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

I missed this gem:

They aren't trying to make it illegal.

Pardon me, but didn't you say this in an earlier comment?

Me - Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.

You - Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.

I'm quoting you now where you said otherwise. Not a strawman argument anymore. So let's go back to the first comment shall we? Incidentally, let me know which of your two statements you actually believe in.

Re:The internet

[node 3]

And if I jailbreak without running pirate apps? Surely you're not implying that apple is ok with that?

I've already covered this two posts back when I wrote, "I've never implied Apple is OK with jailbreaking. I'm merely stating that Apple hasn't made it illegal."

In any case, jailbreaking and pirating apps need to be dealt with separately because I can jailbreak without pirating anything.

You should heed your own words. You claimed that Apple has (made, tried to make, said) jailbreaking illegal, when all they've done is said it violates the DMCA if used to pirate apps.

Any part of their TOS that stops me from doing what I want with my device will not stand up to legal scrutiny - and I'm willing to bet on this.

That's not what the law says.

To end this, filing comments as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking regarding jailbreaking constitutes "trying" in my book. If they just wanted to make a statement they could have issued a press release.

They aren't trying to make it illegal. They are claiming that it already is.

If you read Page 11 section A of their filing you'll see this: "Jailbreaking Results in Copyright Infringement". The subsection A makes no mention of pirated apps meaning that apple is against jailbreaking per se and not just in connection with pirated apps.

The only copyright infringement that exists in the process is pirating apps. If they are claiming that simply modifying the system files themselves constitutes copyright infringement, I don't think that position is legally tenable.

Distributing copyrighted files in the process of jailbreaking, however, most definitely would run afoul of copyright laws (and potentially the DMCA).

Re:The internet

[node 3]

I missed this gem:

They aren't trying to make it illegal.

Pardon me, but didn't you say this in an earlier comment?

Me - Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.

You - Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.

I'm quoting you now where you said otherwise. Not a strawman argument anymore. So let's go back to the first comment shall we? Incidentally, let me know which of your two statements you actually believe in.

Context, jackass. Both comments I made are 100% true.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

"They are trying to make jailbreaking illegal"
vs

Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal

"Please quote where I said otherwise"

Context. That must be it...

Re:The internet

[node 3]

"They are trying to make jailbreaking illegal"

vs

Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal

"Please quote where I said otherwise"

Context. That must be it...

The context is I said one thing after the other. You brought in a straw man, then continued with it, so naturally I will address that thing.

When I wrote the first thing you quoted, it was true. You were making a straw man, and I never said anything about that. When I wrote the second thing, it was also true, as Apple is not trying to make jailbreaking illegal in the EFF/DMCA article to which my statement was addressing.

If I say, "I've never hit a home run", at a time when I haven't, but then later hit a home run, there's nothing false or contradictory in that.

In other words, context, jackass.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

To follow your logic, in the time since you made the two statements, apple has changed their policy and stopped trying to make jailbreaking illegal!

Re:The internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: Either buy something else, or accept the restrictions. It's not like anybody's MAKING you buy an iDevice (the kids at school being mean if you don't DOESNT COUNT), or that the restrictions are a secret.

Re:The internet

[node 3]

To follow your logic, in the time since you made the two statements, apple has changed their policy and stopped trying to make jailbreaking illegal!

That's not a requirement for both of my statements to be correct and non-contradictory.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

You first said this:

Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal

"Please quote where I said otherwise"

In effect, you agree that Apple is trying to make Jailbreaking illegal. Otherwise your strawman refutation is invalid.

Then you said this:

"They aren't trying to make it illegal." (Here's your comment - line 4.)

Since these are contradictory statements, the only way both your statements can be consistent and true is if your opinion of the fact in question has changed between the making of the two statements.

So yeah, it's pretty much a requirement I'm afraid.

Re:The internet

[node 3]

In effect, you agree that Apple is trying to make Jailbreaking illegal. Otherwise your strawman refutation is invalid.

No, a straw man just means you were attacking something I hadn't said as though I did.

Since these are contradictory statements, the only way both your statements can be consistent and true is if your opinion of the fact in question has changed between the making of the two statements.

No, it was a straw man. That doesn't change if later I do say that thing. If you eat a steak which you later crap out, that doesn't it goes back in time and becomes crap when you ate it. It was still steak then, and will always have been.

So yeah, it's pretty much a requirement I'm afraid.

You're not afraid, you're just wrong.

Are you done trying to score a silly point? Logic is not on your side on this one, and neither is context.

Re:The internet

[bhagwad]

No, a straw man just means you were attacking something I hadn't said as though I did.

Or something you hadn't implied. Here is what you said:

Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.

Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.

In this you're implying that you agree with my assertion that apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal. If you're not implying this, then you agree with my statement and it isn't a strawman anymore since then I'm not putting words in your mouth, but simply reflecting what you actually imply.

No, it was a straw man. That doesn't change if later I do say that thing. If you eat a steak which you later crap out, that doesn't it goes back in time and becomes crap when you ate it. It was still steak then, and will always have been.

This is a red herring. You haven't explained how you can justify making two completely different statements when nothing has changed in the time between making them.

You're not afraid, you're just wrong.

Irrelevant and trying to score silly points. You're running out of real arguments here.

Are you done trying to score a silly point? Logic is not on your side on this one, and neither is context.

You started the nitpicking with your "trying to make"/making legal distinction. Don't pick a fight unless you can go all the way. And as far as logic goes, you pretty much landed yourself in a soup trying to appear cleverer than you really are.

Re:The internet

[node 3]

In this you're implying that you agree with my assertion that apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.

Your argument rests on reading into my words something I didn't say. What I actually wrote does not contradict anything.

If you're not implying this, then you agree with my statement and it isn't a strawman anymore since then I'm not putting words in your mouth, but simply reflecting what you actually imply.

That's not what a straw man means. All it means is you are putting up defense against an argument I didn't make.

This is a red herring. You haven't explained how you can justify making two completely different statements when nothing has changed in the time between making them.

The first statement was:

1a. I never said that
1b. you have built a straw man

My second statement was:

2. Apple isn't trying to make jailbreaking illegal in that EFF/DMCA document

None of those are contradictory.

The reason I didn't clarify 1a is because I didn't think you were going to be a moron and continue down this pointless track of "Apple is trying to make it illegal". I was wrong. Reading more into what I wrote than what I wrote is not a valid attack.

You started the nitpicking with your "trying to make"/making legal distinction. Don't pick a fight unless you can go all the way. And as far as logic goes, you pretty much landed yourself in a soup trying to appear cleverer than you really are.

What are you talking about? I'm supposed to defend myself against something I didn't say? That I was being clever by not saying something that I didn't say? That 'logic' means "whatever bhagwad infers"?

I just don't get it.

[bennomatic]

The iPad is a *new* device, and anything published on it is available there in addition to all the other devices and media through which publication was previously possible. How could this be a censorship issue worthy of government attention?

Is it censorship? In the broadest sense, yes. But do I want the federal gov't meddling with this? Any federal gov't? It sets a scary precedent.

Re:I just don't get it.

[mrwolf007]

Its not just about the iPad.
German magazine publishers have been uncomfortable with Apple for quite a while now.
The issues are Apples censorship, ranging from tits to satire, and the 30% cut Apple demands.
It is likely the WeTab (formerly known as WePad) will receive major backing from german publishers.
A video from a prototype can be found here

Re:I just don't get it.

[Shoe Puppet]

Is it censorship? In the broadest sense, yes. But do I want the federal gov't meddling with this? Any federal gov't? It sets a scary precedent.

I don't see the problem. It's not like it were about letting the government censor instead of apple, it's about exactly the opposite: The government preventing censorship, for a change.

Re:I just don't get it.

[dangitman]

I don't see the problem. It's not like it were about letting the government censor instead of apple, it's about exactly the opposite: The government preventing censorship, for a change.

No, this would be the government restricting freedom of speech (if it were actually a government doing anything, and not just a publishers' trade group whining). Do you want the government forcing you to say something?

Re:I just don't get it.

[Elektroschock]

Indeed, and it pays off. But the main problem is the insane spin in the media: iPad will rescue the publishing industry.

Re:I just don't get it.

[Shoe Puppet]

No, but I'm a human, not a corporation. Also distributing someone else's speech is completely unlike saying something.

Re:I just don't get it.

[dangitman]

No, but I'm a human, not a corporation.

So, we shouldn't have freedom of the press, because the presses are run by corporations?

Also distributing someone else's speech is completely unlike saying something.

What? It's exactly like saying something.

Re:I just don't get it.

[Shoe Puppet]

No, but I'm a human, not a corporation.

So, we shouldn't have freedom of the press, because the presses are run by corporations?

We should. But that's not because corporations have the right to it, but because we need access to a free press.

Also distributing someone else's speech is completely unlike saying something.

What? It's exactly like saying something.

Not any more than delivering a letter.

Re:I just don't get it.

[dangitman]

We should. But that's not because corporations have the right to it, but because we need access to a free press.

So, other publishers should have freedom, but not Apple?

Not any more than delivering a letter.

That makes no sense whatsoever, as we're not talking about a letter delivery service. Publishers are characterized by what they choose to publish. While the US Postal Service may deliver your racist, KKK inspired propaganda, the local newspaper has no obligation to publish it.

And you thought Microsoft was evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple 2010: censoring apps, hindering competition, trying hard to get a music selling monopoly, delivering substandard quality and then selling it as 'it just works'. The list could go on and on. Please people, realise that Apple is inherently evil and that we can be extremely lucky that Microsoft won the PC market in the 80's. We could have been stuck with a closed pc market where Apple controls what apps you can run, which documents you can download and what music you are allowed to listen to.

And the funny thing? Apple gets away with it due to Steve Jobs' reality distortion field. What a douche.

Boycot Apple!

Re:And you thought Microsoft was evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple 2010: censoring apps, hindering competition, trying hard to get a music selling monopoly (..)"

The worst part is, it just works!

Re:And you thought Microsoft was evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

My flash based internet doesnt.

Tu quoque!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the tu quoque fallacy. Weak, very weak.

Different morals

[cheesybagel]

Germans usually tolerate porn and other adult content more than in the US. In contrast vandalism, violence, nazism, or other cultist movements are censored in Germany.

Re:Different morals

[jeti]

We just don't think of nudity as porn.

Re:Different morals

[Yvanhoe]

I don't think that vandalism or violence are particularly censored in Germany. They had their crazy lobbyist about violent games but I don't think they manage to pass laws in that direction.

Re:Different morals

[N0Man74]

Some of us Americans don't either... though we seemed to be in a minority.

Re:Different morals

[Anonymous Coward]

The German versions of games are as heavily censored as Australia.

Re:Different morals

[Dr. Hok]

Germans usually tolerate porn and other adult content more than in the US.

True. For instance, I wonder why nobody complains about the beeps that replace all four-letter words (except "Lord") on American TV. (You are aware that the people aren't actually saying "beep", right?) I'd call that censorship. I can live with people saying "fuck" on TV every once in a while.

On the other hand, I find it hard to live with the knowledge that kids are being abused in order to produce child porn. And I wouldn't (necessarily) call the attempt to dry out the child porn market censorship. I mean, seriously, does it impede your right to free speech if you are not allowed to produce and circulate child porn?

Re:Different morals

[grumbel]

Germans tolerate nudity, not porn. When you want to publish a pornographic webpage in Germany you have to jump to quite some hoops to not get into conflict with the law, a simple age-gate isn't enough here.

Nudity on the other side is pretty much a non-issue, you see naked people on public TV quite frequently and even in advertisment.

Re:Different morals

[OrwellianLurker]

mean, seriously, does it impede your right to free speech if you are not allowed to produce and circulate child porn?

It depends on how you would define child porn. Some would argue that having small breasts makes you a child.

Re:Different morals

[grumbel]

Violent video games can be rated, indexed and completly banned in Germany. When they just get rated, an 18+ sticker gets onto the box and sales to minors is forbidden (somewhat similar to M rating). When they get indexed, it is also forbidden to do advertisment or public sales of those games (i.e. no more buying them at amazon.de), you are still allowed in theory to purcase them under the counter, in practice however Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo won't even publish those games in Germany, so you have to import them (similar to the effects of AO rating). The last stage is completly banning a game, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen (i.e. Dead Rising), then even the sale is forbidden.

Another difference is that the rating system is enforced by the state, while in the US its just the cooperation that do the enforcement of ESRB stuff.

Re:Different morals

[MightyMartian]

It depends on how you would define child porn. Some would argue that having small breasts makes you a child.

Of course, on Slashdot, the big issue is whether big breasts make you a woman.

Re:Different morals

[Anonymous Coward]

Undoing accidental mod.

Re:Different morals

[icebraining]

I mean, seriously, does it impede your right to free speech if you are not allowed to produce and circulate child porn?

Only if you're the kid :)

Seriously, free speech is not supposed to override every other right, and the child has the right to protect his own image. Now, if we're talking about drawings, then yes, it does impede the right of free speech - drawings don't have rights on their image.

Re:Different morals

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite funny, 15 years ago or so, swear words were much more often censored ("bleeped out") in Germany iirc.

Over time, they stopped doing this, because no-one thought it was offensive to show somebody saying a swear word, and now the only shows with bleeps are the afternoon talk shows, and that's only for nostalgia, I guess. It seems that shows about people shouting at each other just wouldn't be the same without the funny bleeps.

Re:Different morals

[Lars T.]

It's quite funny, 15 years ago or so, swear words were much more often censored ("bleeped out") in Germany iirc.

You remember bullshit. IIRC you never left Wisconsin.

Re:Different morals

[Elektroschock]

Not quite. Ban means penalty code. That is something completely different than indexing. And even in the case of indexing a political majority cannot influence it.

Re:Different morals

[KDR_11k]

What bothers me about child porn restrictions is that they tend to be expanded to cover fiction, protecting children from abuse is one thing but drawings or CG renderings are clearly not children. While I could understand covering CG that's so close to real that it could have been produced by manipulating real child porn a bit to make it look CG, drawings are clearly not photos!

Re:Different morals

[KDR_11k]

I'm inclined to agree with them, but I think it should be pointed out that this does not mean depictions of underage sex can never have literary, artistic, political or scientific value, only that protecting children is more important even if the works do have value. In other words, we are limiting free speech, but we're doing so to protect a perceived greater good.

They wrote their constitution without exceptions on the first amendment, they gotta deal with it. If they wanted to permit exceptions like that they should have added them. Change the constitution to add exceptions to the first amendment or accept that you made laws that block yourself.

Re:Different morals

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, bitch and ass are used on network tv. Southpark has said shit (a lot, too). Comedy central and Cartoon Network (via Adult Swim) use nigger. I don't know if cunt has ever been allowed, but fuck is really the only word still really constantly censored.

Re:Different morals

[jonaskoelker]

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but the constitution's just a piece of paper. We are a living, breathing society ruled by living, breathing individuals and our laws likewise evolve with us.

Who directs the laws? Who sets their direction?

Why can I make laws restricting what you do (or not, as the case may be)? If party A can make laws restricting the behavior of party B, shouldn't party B get a say in which laws party A can make?

Would you be OK with me making a law that says you should pay me 100% of your earnings in taxes (and all your stuff in property taxes)? No? Is that only because I don't have enough guns to enforce it? Do you believe might makes right?

I'm European, so I probably trust my government more than the average US citizen trust theirs. But I still want my government to be limited in its ability to intrude in my life.

Re:Different morals

[Dr. Hok]

It depends on how you would define child porn. Some would argue that having small breasts makes you a child.

Hm.. well, others would argue that having small breasts makes you a middle-aged man who has had too many beers.

I thought we got rid of them...

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is the country that has banned Wikileaks"
Damn Nazis.

It's Called A Browser

[jjoelc]

Build a better website, and you won't need an iPhone app.

Re:It's Called A Browser

[jjoelc]

Just, for the love of god, don't build it in Flash! ;-)

Re:It's Called A Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Just, for the love of god, don't build it in Flash! ;-)

I think that's implied when he says "Build a *better* website".

Worldwide control?

[dangitman]

The move draws attention to growing concerns about freedom of the press when a single unelected commercial entity has worldwide control over what gets published for iPhone and, especially, iPad.

I wasn't aware that an elected government body was responsible for the iPhone and iPad. I thought they were made by Apple. Are iDevices now some kind of "public good" equivalent to the airwaves?

How is freedom of the press affected by Apple's decisions? Surely, newspapers and other media outlets have other avenues to publish besides the iPad? The device has only been on sale for a few weeks, how can it have any real effect on journalism, when the number of people who own one are such a miniscule portion of the media-consuming public that it doesn't even count as a rounding error?

Re:Worldwide control?

[vlad30]

The Press similar to Banking was once a regulated but fair industry actually helping consumers,while deregulated banking gave us a GFC, the press is owned more by single entities that control and give you crap news and look only for advertising dollars with the cheapest content possible. Seriously when is the last time you saw an expose in a paper or on TV that wasn't already reported elsewhere. It appears germany is at least trying to keep up with technology and if the iPad is the next way to read a paper then the company that controls the platform can also control the content. Easily solved though force the platform to use open and non DRM content that can easily read by any device and most importantly downloaded from any source.

Re:Worldwide control?

[dangitman]

Easily solved though force the platform to use open and non DRM content that can easily read by any device and most importantly downloaded from any source.

Seeing as that is already allowed on the iPhone/iPad platform, how is it an issue?

Re:Worldwide control?

[vlad30]

Seeing as that is already allowed on the iPhone/iPad platform, how is it an issue?

Seems the publishers like their DRM though even though Apple gives the option maybe the governments should talk to the publishers then

And?

[bidule]

"A single unelected commercial entity has worldwide control over what gets published for" the PS3.

"A single unelected commercial entity has worldwide control over what gets published for" the Wii.

Are they pushing Apple to do the same as Sony and Nintendo, or are they pushing for special privileges?

What's stopping them from simply publishing their content as web pages?
Why would they want special applications?

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had read the article you would know that the ones addressing Apple are none other than the association of German magazine publishers. Do you believe that the PS3 and the Wii is being used to read magazines? Well, the iPhone and the iPad is most certainly being used to read magazines.

Re:And?

[Shoe Puppet]

While having the games market under control of these corporations is unfortunate, having media censored by one is actually quite bad for society. Of course, there are still classical newspapers and the internet and thus Apple cannot effectively censor -- but especially if the iPad becomes more widespread, they will be able to influence what people can get easily. I imagine people might choose to ignore a media source because there is no app for it.

Also, this appears to be a distribution channel people actually are willing to pay for, making access to it even more important for publishers.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, for the PS3 and Wii, you're wrong. The only requirement is that you buy a dev kit from them. After you do that, you can publish whatever the fuck you want. Apple wants you to buy in too, true, but they can then still say no to whatever you make.

Re:And?

[nacturation]

Except, for the PS3 and Wii, you're wrong. The only requirement is that you buy a dev kit from them. After you do that, you can publish whatever the fuck you want.

Wrong. You can make whatever you want with a dev kit, but it requires Sony's or Nintendo's approval to get them to publish it.

On the magazine issue, if the magazines are asking for the ability to control what gets published, I would like the magazines to agree to publish whatever I ask them to in their magazines. It's only fair that it works both ways, right?

Re:And?

[node 3]

Except, for the PS3 and Wii, you're wrong. The only requirement is that you buy a dev kit from them. After you do that, you can publish whatever the fuck you want. Apple wants you to buy in too, true, but they can then still say no to whatever you make.

There are no homebrew games (outside of hacked consoles) for the Wii, PS3 or Xbox 360. So, no, you can't "publish whatever the fuck you want". You still have to get approval from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

Re:And?

[mrwolf007]

I would like the magazines to agree to publish whatever I ask them to in their magazines. It's only fair that it works both ways, right?

You can.
Its called advertisement.

Re:And?

[mjwx]

"A single unelected commercial entity has worldwide control over what gets published for" the PS3. "A single unelected commercial entity has worldwide control over what gets published for" the Wii.

Let me know when Sony forces you to buy A Bravia TV to use a PS3. Also let me know when Nintendo forces all third party game developers to sell through the N store.

Such a terrible analogy, how did it ever get modded insightful. you're not comparing apples to apples, you're not even comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to rocks as far as corporate policies go. Compared to Apple, Sony is the paragon of freedom (and I don't have kind words to say about Sony's policies either).

Re:And?

[Lars T.]

"A single unelected commercial entity has worldwide control over what gets published for" the PS3. "A single unelected commercial entity has worldwide control over what gets published for" the Wii.

Let me know when Sony forces you to buy A Bravia TV to use a PS3.

Let me know when Apple forces you to buy an Apple made TV to hook up to any Apple device. Ohh, yeah, right.

Re:And?

[nacturation]

I would like the magazines to agree to publish whatever I ask them to in their magazines. It's only fair that it works both ways, right?

You can. Its called advertisement.

Not exactly the same, unless you're suggesting that magazines participate in Apple's mobile advertising network, iAd. After I pay Apple $99/year for their developer program, it costs nothing to publishing something to the app store. Can I pay a magazine $99/year and publish article after article in their magazine at no additional cost?

Re:And?

[KDR_11k]

The Wii has a news channel that mostly runs AP and equivalent stories but I guess they aren't worried about that.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wii, PS3, 360 are all gaming devices. You don't see M$ Exchange or a simple mail client in any of these platforms, do you? I think the closest you'll get to any "business" function with them is a built-in browser in two of those consoles.

A smart phone is a general purpose computer in a small portable form factor with calling capabilities. Currently, Apple is the only major company that arbitrarily limits available applications.

Does this explain the difference to you?

Re:And?

[LinuxAndLube]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games)#Xbox_360

As Indiana Jones said

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nazis! I hate those guys!"

apples lockin also brakes freedoms in German law

[Joe The Dragon]

apples lockin also brakes freedoms in German law as well.

Not exactly

[AffidavitDonda]

You can publish nearly everything, but in some cases you will have to accept that shops can only sell it to adults. So most game companies decide to remove some of the more violent scenes for easier publishing and a larger amount of potential customers. So I wouldn't call it exactly "censorship". (But this may be a matter of definition)

Re:Not exactly

[KDR_11k]

Indexing doesn't just prevent selling to adults but also advertising (including putting it on shelves) where minors could see it, most stores won't stock indexed media so it's a de-facto censorship. IMO the govt needs to take measures to make indexed media commercially viable (at least not significantly less than USK/FSK 18 rated material) if it wants to claim that's not censorship.

Why then can I access it?

[AffidavitDonda]

Just checked that out, I have no problems to access Wikileaks here in Germany. actual headline: "... could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act. — Time Magazine

Re:Why then can I access it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks was bannend because they published lists of child pornography. They did this in order to demonstrate that most child pornography cencore lists are misused to ban harmless sites. In fact, in germany you can get a house search just for knowing, that there ist child pornography somewhere in the world. But Wikileaks isn't banned anymore.

Re:Why then can I access it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, my mistake: Wikileaks wasn't banned. They just forget to renew their contract with their provider. This happens on the same time when they published the lists, so that a lot of people thought they were banned for that.

Re:Why then can I access it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, Wikileaks wasn't banned. TFS is just FUD against Germany ... I mean which country developed plans to destroy WikiLeaks?

Maybe it's not so much about freedom of press

[AffidavitDonda]

I can't say for sure, but this may as well be about Apple controlling the market for applications on their devices. This would be more on the line of Microsofts trouble about bundling IE with Windows and using a monopolist position to prevent small companies from competition.

Re:Maybe it's not so much about freedom of press

[dangitman]

I can't say for sure, but this may as well be about Apple controlling the market for applications on their devices.

Why would that be an issue? Are they investigating Sony for controlling the market for PS3 applications, or Microsoft for controlling Xbox applications?

This would be more on the line of Microsofts trouble about bundling IE with Windows and using a monopolist position to prevent small companies from competition.

But Microsoft did not control just Microsoft computers. In fact Microsoft doesn't even make PCs. They controlled a whole constellation of third-party companies, who probably would not survive without Windows installed on their hardware.

Re:Maybe it's not so much about freedom of press

[node 3]

I can't say for sure, but this may as well be about Apple controlling the market for applications on their devices. This would be more on the line of Microsofts trouble about bundling IE with Windows and using a monopolist position to prevent small companies from competition.

Apple's App Store has nothing to do with preventing competition. Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows was using one Monopoly to promote another product. Apple has no monopoly.

Re:Maybe it's not so much about freedom of press

[KDR_11k]

Are they investigating Sony for controlling the market for PS3 applications, or Microsoft for controlling Xbox applications?

I think that's actually long overdue, these devices were sold at a loss using the vast coffers of these megacorps in order to lock consumers into their software scheme, an investigation might be in order.

Re:Maybe it's not so much about freedom of press

[KDR_11k]

I don't have numbers but iTunes could be large enough to count as one (remember monopolies in the eye of the law don't need to fulfill the strict definition of a monopoly, merely be strong enough that they can effectively control the market) and the iDevices would then be an antitrust issue. Wasn't there even a lawsuit brought over this?

Re:Maybe it's not so much about freedom of press

[dangitman]

I think that's actually long overdue, these devices were sold at a loss

The PS3 was sold at a loss? That's hard to believe given how expensive it is. What's your source for that claim? The Xbox (although cheaper) also seemed priced pretty appropriately for the hardware.

Re:Maybe it's not so much about freedom of press

[node 3]

I don't have numbers but iTunes could be large enough to count as one (remember monopolies in the eye of the law don't need to fulfill the strict definition of a monopoly, merely be strong enough that they can effectively control the market)

Correct, but Apple is not a monopoly in any market, including online music. They are the largest music store, but music is quite readily available from multiple sources.

Re:Maybe it's not so much about freedom of press

[KDR_11k]

They don't release numbers for that but estimates ran around 900$ production cost per unit on the PS3 at launch. I think MS also stated something about a loss during the early years of the 360.

Fool

[AffidavitDonda]

Really, what else to say? That's a democratic country and you would find far more White-Power-Supremacists in your country...

Re:Fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You REALLY think there are more white supremacists in Mexico than in Germany?
  Really?

Re:Fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico is pretty close to Texas, so... fuck yeah there are more white supremacists.

New record on summary mistakes?

[Menchi]

This is the country that has banned Wikileaks

Except they didn't. wikileaks.de was disabled because the guy who own this domain (and nothing else related to wikileaks) didn't pay his bills. He was also involved in some fraud so his ISP didn't want to do business with him any more. They informed him 3 or 4 month before killing his account, he just forgot about it.

sought a ban on violent games

Good thing the word sought is there. The conservative hardliners have been talking about it for 20 years now and so far not much has happened. Preemptive censorship by the publishers is far worse.

and voted to censor child porn (only to have the president kill the ban as unconstituitonal).

Except he didn't, he signed this law. It's just that everybody (including half the people who voted for it) hoped he wouldn't because a few month after this law was voted on the pirate party gained 2% in the federal election (5% is the minimum to get seats, which they did get in some regions). The last thing any of the established parties want is yet another party to worry about so internet topics suddenly because important. The ministry of justice has instructed the police to treat this law as the most unimportant one of all (i.e. not enforce it) and the parliament is actively working on replacing it with a law that does not allow filtering. All in all, awesome summary.

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[Dr. Hok]

and voted to censor child porn (only to have the president kill the ban as unconstituitonal).

Except he didn't, he signed this law. It's just that everybody (including half the people who voted for it) hoped he wouldn't because a few month after this law was voted on the pirate party gained 2% in the federal election (5% is the minimum to get seats, which they did get in some regions). The last thing any of the established parties want is yet another party to worry about so internet topics suddenly because important. The ministry of justice has instructed the police to treat this law as the most unimportant one of all (i.e. not enforce it) and the parliament is actively working on replacing it with a law that does not allow filtering.

The success of the German Pirate Party may be one of the reasons, but I guess the major reason is that the law gives the BKA (German federal police) the right to decide which site is to be blocked. Which is unconstitutional. The job of the police is to enforce the law, not to decide what is lawful. So everybody is scared that the law is torn to pieces by the constitutional court.

BTW: The German Pirate Party has its own problems now. Their most famous member (Jörg Tauss, former social democrat and member of parliament) has just been convicted of possessing child porn (no surprise he is against censorship). Oh, ex-member: he left the party in order "to keep damage away from it", but I suspect that sufficient damage has been done already.

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[mseeger]

Mod parent up please...

Unluckily cross-checking facts about foreign countries is not a high priority on Slashdot. They hope the comments will correct any mistake (as one does here).

CU, Martin

P.S. There is a lot more to this news than it appears. The media moguls are complaining about a new stranglehold threatening their stranglehold on the public opinion. What an irony ....

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[WoOS]

And also wrong is:

> This is the country that ... voted to censor child porn

Due to lack of a plebiscite in the constitution _the country_ definitely did not vote on censoring child porn. The parliament did and thanks to highly enforced party whip (great expression in English) even that can hardly be called a vote.

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kdawson. That's all that needs to be said.

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[datorum]

>> sought a ban on violent games >Good thing the word sought is there. The conservative hardliners have been talking about it for 20 years now and so far not much has happened. > Preemptive censorship by the publishers is far worse. let me guess why? I am pretty fucking sick of "available in the EU except Germany", "worldwide (except Germany)", etc. on steam, impulse, etc. This happens for games with different themes like Star Wars: Battlefront, Company of Heroes (which as far as I can remember, doesn't have any swastikas in it)... well, maybe these "preemptive censorship" is due to the fact that the put a "ban" (no commercials etc. allowed) on Dark Forces and several other titles ages ago? The content-delivery services seem to be very cautious about what you can buy from German soil...

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not just kdawson. Which country tried to destroy WikiLeaks?

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[caitsith01]

and voted to censor child porn (only to have the president kill the ban as unconstituitonal).

Except he didn't, he signed this law. It's just that everybody (including half the people who voted for it) hoped he wouldn't because a few month after this law was voted on the pirate party gained 2% in the federal election (5% is the minimum to get seats, which they did get in some regions). The last thing any of the established parties want is yet another party to worry about so internet topics suddenly because important. The ministry of justice has instructed the police to treat this law as the most unimportant one of all (i.e. not enforce it) and the parliament is actively working on replacing it with a law that does not allow filtering.

Am I in some parallel universe where banning child porn is considered a good thing? I'm not talking cartoons and the like, but actual child porn featuring actual children?

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it has to be said that he court doesn't consider Tauss a pedophile (look into the official press release of the court (German, last paragraph has it)).
They just said that he has taken the wrong measures to gain inside knowledge about the child porn scene. He could just have asked some expert and would have got the same knowledge. Therefore his possession of child pornography was not covered by the exception of the law that says that you may possess CP if you need it to do your job. (e.g. if you are a federal agent trying to catch the creators).

German law is actuall rather harsh about it. If you should happen to find child pornography (I don't know how this could possibly happen by accident, but still...) you can't even report it to the police, since your browser cache of the images would still count as possession, and since you don't work as a federal agent who fights child pornography, you are pretty much screwed then. One police officer even recommended in a public magazine that you PRINT IT OUT and bring it to the nearest police station. Udo Vetter (a blogging German lawyer who is famous among German netizens) was outraged by such stupid advice (link German) since by printing you would duplicate the child pornography, and there is no excuse for that by German law and you would be hit by the full force of justice even if you just tried to help.

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, child porn is banned in Germany. But there were plans to make a law to introduce DNS blocking of child pornography pages.

Only this means of fighting CP was criticised because it is considered ineffective and exploitable by experts. Still the law passed. It was a short time before the elections after all, and the minister of family wanted to make clear that she wasn't just slacking off for 4 years. Now the government considers a new law to enable the law enforcement agencies to take the servers of CP offline (which is actually already possible by current law, but somehow they have to get rid of the flawed bill after all)

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[smurfsurf]

Well, the summary is very, very wrong.

Producing, obtaining and possession of child porn is a criminal offence in Germany.

Before election (who would have thought) there was a law passed that mandated ISP would have to redirect (via DNS) to a warning website any request made to a website on a secret block list. Anyone redirected was to be logged and investigated. Linkbomb anyone?

The concerns:
1. This list was to be secret and maintained by the federal police without any legislative oversight. Basically a censorship infrastructure for the executive.
2. The measure is widely inefficient and easily to circumvent.
3. It has been demonstrated by the opponents of the law that contacting the hosting company will get the stuff deleted and fast. Many were just hijacked.

Therefore the counterproposal was to make the police do no. 3, as this removes the material (the police was not doing this at all, at most they sometimes contacted the police in the hosting country -> bureaucracy). In contrast to the passed law, that simply tries to hide it behind a paper screen.

Of cause politicians do not want to admit they are wrong, so in spite of a wide protest and against all expert opinion, the law was passed. After some nasty mud-slinging against all opponents of the law.

And a week after the election and the pirate party's 2% result, the other partys started to worry about losing the younger voters. And they saw that the "you are a kiddieporn supporter" tactic did not work. So the former coalition parties were quickly trying to retract the law and politicians were saying they were always against the law but had to stay in the party line.

You got to love politics...
 

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[Lars T.]

Its not just kdawson. Which country tried to destroy WikiLeaks?

The US? Australia?

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[Jesus_666]

Perhaps because the games in question have not yet been rated or the rating was rejected? Unrated games are treated like ones with an USK 18 rating - you may not sell them to minors. In addition, several companies like Microsoft completely refuse to bring any unrated game to market.

Note that the "no advertising" rule is related to the Index, onto which only unrated games can be put since 2003. Which, by the way, is one reason why companies won't release unrated games.

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[Jesus_666]

You forgot concern number 4: The list would've been trivial to extend with non-child porn sites, turning it into a general censorship platform. In fact, even before the law was passed several politicians stated that they'd like to see a few other things put on there.

They couldn't have made it any more blatant without naming the law "law for raping of the constitution and censoring of the internet; oh, and also child porn".

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[timbo234]

Am I in some parallel universe where banning child porn is considered a good thing? I'm not talking cartoons and the like, but actual child porn featuring actual children?

No, child porn is illegal and always has been in Germany. The issue is that the previous government used the child porn bogeyman to try to scare people into accepting internet censorship based on a secretive blacklist (similar to what's being proposed by senator Conroy in Oz).

The new government threw out that law and adopted a new policy that translates roughly as 'deletion rather than blocking'. I.e. they'll use the police to go after people who setup child porn sites instead of trying to censor the net (a hopeless task anyway).

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[datorum]

both games in question were "ancient" to the time I wanted to buy them. Star Wars Battlefront 2 & Company of Heroes bundle in 2010. Star Wars Battlefront 2 is lying around at any brick & mortar although in the German version, which I refuse to buy, I prefer English. Company of Heroes has a USK rating of 16... so well.

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[Menchi]

The content-delivery services seem to be very cautious about what you can buy from German soil

Don't confuse selling with releasing. Companies refuse to release that stuff in the first place. An easy way around this problem is to just buy UK imports. If you live in a big city there probably is a shop near you that sells this stuff. Otherwise just order it on the internet, either from UK sites like amazon.co.uk/play.com (you'll need a credit card for this) or from German shops that specialize in this stuff, like Okaysoft (you'll need to send them a copy of you ID first, as proof of age). So if you want to buy uncensored games in Germany there are a lot of options and all of them are 100% legal. But the people who release the games on the German market are big companies that try to maximize profits, naturally. Restriction on the age of potential customers is bad for that, therefore they'll cut as much as possible to get the rating as low as possible.

Re:New record on summary mistakes?

[datorum]

thanks for the info, I am well aware what I can do, I already have company of heroes ordered in the uk and I usually do that, yet sometimes I am "forced" to not buy games in content-delivery stuff, because of the happy-censoring mentality in Germany (and Austria), you can asked Heinrich Heine about that, this is not something new. simply put, I know all the stuff you write, also about maximizing profits, yet it is just - in my worldview - stupid, ineffective, partially anti-democratic and mostly against freedom of speech. the strategy with maximizing profits is in my opinion the real good indicator that we are dealing with a real censorship practice here, because Germany is BIG market, yet, many content-delivery shops choose to DENY selling to this market! Because they are afraid of the legal consequences of selling a video game to someone in Germany, who has access to a credit card... scary isn't it? Companies forfeiting profit and driving away customers not out of stupidity but they are afraid...

Our president did NOT kill the ban!

[AlgorithMan]

Horst Köhler just hesitated to sign the law because he wanted to inspect it thoroughly. Later he signed it
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bundespraesident-unterzeichnet-Websperren-Gesetz-933180.html

Re:Our president did NOT kill the ban!

[Anonymous Coward]

Btw., today he resigned.

Apple =/= News Monopoly

[JonBuck]

The submitter seems to think that Apple somehow wields a monopoly over information sources. While they may have a degree of dominance in certain areas, there are far more choices of where to get your media than an iPhone/iPad. If you don't agree with Apple's "walled garden" approach, then you don't have to use their product. There's Blackberry and Android out there for you instead. Have fun.

Re:Apple =/= News Monopoly

[mrwolf007]

The submitter seems to think that China somehow wields a monopoly over information sources. While they may have a degree of dominance in certain areas, there are far more choices of where to get your media than China. If you don't agree with China's "walled garden" approach, then you don't have to live there. There's Europe and America out there for you instead. Have fun.

It's a bit of an overstatement, but maybe you get the point.

It's the association of magazine publishers

[Colin Smith]

Not the German state.

Get it now?

i.e. They want a slice.
 

Re:It's the association of magazine publishers

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. A few months ago, the carried the still in development iPad as it were the holy grail or at least the omnipotent solution to declining cash via print magazines. A critical point of view on specs or business model? No way. Praise the Lord^H^H^HJobs. Now the get, what they deserve.

Re:apples lockin also brakes freedoms in German la

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nonsense. Why doesn't anyone have an issue with Microsoft's "lockin" for XBox games? They require the same approval process to get the XBox logo on your game box. They've consistently blocked third party installation of software. Or Nintendo? Nintendo has gone so far as to sue every game publisher that tried to sidestep their approval process... on the NES back in the early 90's. That was almost 20 years ago! Every game for every Nintendo console has to be approved. Or Sony? The PSP had a browser and no flash, and software updates consistently blocked installation of unapproved software.

Nothing Apple is doing hasn't been done by the game console manufacturers for at least a decade, and mobile phone companies too. You can't install software on my Verizon Env phone without going through their "Get it Now" store, which also requires approval, and this phone was released 2 years before the iPhone existed.

I don't understand the focus on Apple and the iPhone/iPad or why this is suddenly an issue now. Is everyone blind about this being normal business practice for the entire industry?

It's their product

[gilesjuk]

They can do what the heck they want with it.

You can't release a game on the Wii, XBox 360 or PS3 without involvement from Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony. You have to buy their dev kit, get approval from them and even pay them a royalty for each sale of the game.

So why is the iPad different? just because the distribution is electronic and it is a slightly more generic device than a games console doesn't mean Apple can't control the platform.

If you don't like the rules, don't agree to them. Buy something else.

Re:It's their product

[Shoe Puppet]

Unlike games, media are actually important to society. Letting apple control them even a bit sets a bad precedent.

Re:It's their product

[grumbel]

So why is the iPad different?

Magazin publishers don't publish on Wii, Xbox360 or PS3, they however do publish on the iPad. So its only natural that they actually care about the platforms they use and don't care about those they don't use.

Re:It's their product

[node 3]

Unlike games, media are actually important to society. Letting apple control them even a bit sets a bad precedent.

Apple controls no one except for Apple. People voluntarily buy into Apple's products, and they can get rid of them voluntarily, at any time.

Definitely a new record on summary mistakes.

[w4rl5ck]

Well yes, we *have* problems with censorship and freedom in germany (as probably any other country has these days), but this summary is so wrong it hurts really bad...

As mentioned in comments before:

- the internet censorship stuff has not been banned by President Köhler, he just did not sign immediately. He did later, but after an election and a shift in government partys, the law has been stopped by the new government

- the "violent video" thing has been discussed by many hardliners, but there never has been a broad support for that

- wikileaks was not "banned" or anything. The stupid domain owners just did not take the proper steps to keep the domain

So, one will find other, definitely even worse crimes against humanity in Germany, but this list is, well... sort of "outdated and overcome".

Oh, and on topic: the publishers have some valid points here, and we might see some regulations for Apple in Germany. Porn is not illegal here, mind you ;)

The iPad is l33t, anyway.

Re:Definitely a new record on summary mistakes.

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is not "stopped", it is still in full effect. The government only gave order to the police not to make any blocking lists. According to the law, the telecommunication providers could still be fined if they don't install the blocking infrastructure. And in addition, the government could still say any day, that the police may start blocking offending pages (Unlikely that they would, though, especially now that most people have understood that finding and taking down the servers of child pornography is possible and better than simply DNS blocking them)

Re:Definitely a new record on summary mistakes.

[janwedekind]

Maybe the police will confiscate iPads at the next CeBIT (just as they usually do with Chinese brands) due to Apple violating Nokia patents ...

In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well. It should be fought by another kind of evil. - The Chronicles of Riddick

Re:apples lockin also brakes freedoms in German la

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo doesn't require their approval, nor do they censor games anymore. They haven't since the creation of the ESRB. Learn your facts before spouting off. You sound like a fucking idiot to people who actually know this shit.

Quit Whining

[mr_death]

You accepted the iPad/iPhone/iPod restrictions (which are no secret, by the way) when you bought the device, and again when you accepted the license agreement. If you don't want to honor your contractual commitment, buy something else.

Re:Quit Whining

[bhagwad]

I'm well aware of apple's TOS restrictions...but I'll ignore them anyway. And if I ever get taken to court, I have faith in the judiciary at some level upholding my right to do what I want with my device as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Re:Quit Whining

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want to honor your contractual commitment, buy something else.

Hear hear!

Re:Quit Whining

[mr_death]

Ah, so you think you can dictate terms to those you do business with, and renege on terms that you already agreed to. And that some slick lawyer can save you from your poor judgment.

Do let us know when your ivory tower crumbles. And since you declared your intent to violate contract terms here, your violation of the contract terms may be seen as willful, and will create a bigger penalty for you.

Re:Quit Whining

[KDR_11k]

Millions of people buy the devices without knowing about the restrictions Apple imposes. Even if they knew what they're getting into the free flow of information is still hampered and people who use Apple devices as their main news source could end up missing out on news that Apple didn't like.

Re:apples lockin also brakes freedoms in German la

[node 3]

Nintendo doesn't require their approval, nor do they censor games anymore. They haven't since the creation of the ESRB. Learn your facts before spouting off. You sound like a fucking idiot to people who actually know this shit.

You are absolutely wrong. You cannot write homebrew games for the Wii without either hacking your Wii, or going through Nintendo.

We banned Wikileaks? Good to know!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how I'm in Germany and can happily access Wikileaks without problem...or how it wasn't "the country" that voted to put censorship architecture in place, but the conservative parts of parliament...or how it wasn't "the country" that tried to ban violent video games, but 16 politicians.

But hey...a bit more than a hundred...sixteen...eighty million...what's the difference?

I guess the facts weren't as impressive as the random hyperbole over a faraway country.

Then again, it's posted by kdawson...what do I expect?

Re:apples lockin also brakes freedoms in German la

[icebraining]

Read the summary. It's *not* the government, it's the magazine publishers - they want a cut. Nobody will read magazine-like content on those machines.

Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan of it. But there is a difference in a democratically elected constitutional government censoring something and a private company doing it.

That being said, is Apple within their right to sell what they want? Sure. I don't think you can order a bookstore to carry specific material. You *can* buy other ebook readers, and buy your ebooks from other sources. Some of them make it pretty easy (although not *as* easy, which seems to be a system/software design on the part of the competition.)

As much as I am annoyed by Apple (seriously, my next phone will likely be android based) I can't see that Apple should be forced to sell stuff they don't want to. Where Apple crosses the line is when I have to Jailbreak the phone to run a competing SW installer and "app store". And the inability to expand the system easily, to accomodate other data formats (ogg, flac, etc.) Like a car company only letting you use their brand of tires or gasoline. The courts have been there, done away with that.

How long would Apple remain out of court is they attempted the same degree of control on their desktop? Just because the computer is more mobile and some of them include "phone" chips, doesn't mean it's not a computer.

Someone needs to drag their sorry ass into court. But *censorship* is not the winning case. It would be racketeering.

Re:The internet is locked on an Iphone

[mjwx]

I'd like to posit that Apple doesn't have complete control over what content is available for the iPhone/iPad, because it has a web browser.

Just let me view site number 1. nope, flash.

Site number 2 is HTML 5, nope, they use Theora.

Site number 3 displays but doesn't work because I cant use the JavaScript controls.

I'd like to posit that just because it has a web browser does not make it free. I'd also like to posit that Apple maintains 100% control over what can and cannot run on that browser and seeing as you cant install an alternate browser effectively decide what you can and cannot view on the web.

The Iranian version...

[Savage-Rabbit]

Some of us Americans don't either... though we seemed to be in a minority.

I recently watched a German news report on Apple and it's business model entitled "Steve Jobs - the Digital Dictator?". See here (Sorry it's in German and without subtitles). They interviewed a number of people and most of them mentioned that developing/publishing for the Apple platforms (iPod/iPhone/iPad) is a strange experience for Europeans because you have to conform to the "puritanical attitudes" some Americans have to things like nudity and such. One of the people interviewed commented that there is a running joke among developers that if you want to develop or publish for the Apple "i" devices you better go for an "Iranian version" of your product. If it will pass muster with the Iranian Morality Police you stand a chance of making it through the AppStore approval process.

Re:The Iranian version...

[Lars T.]

I recently watched the head of the biggest German publisher on American TV cheer for the iPad, saying "And I think every publisher in the world should sit down once a day and pray to thank Steve Jobs that he is saving the publishing industry with that."

And Springer is actually one of the publisher who were "censored" by Apple. Before he said that.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The internet is locked on an Iphone

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Just let me view site number 1. nope, flash.

Or Silverlight or Realmedia files or Powerpoint files... but that sort of misses the point. To allow an publisher to reach iPhone users, Apple doesn't have to support every kind of file format that ever existed. They jsut have to support open standard formats and developer can use. ANY publisher can create content iPhone users can see by making a standards compliant Web page.

Gorgasm: The Legend of Dong Slayer

[dangitman]

play porn games on his iPad.

A porn video game? It can't be done. Look, history's greatest perverts have tried; Walt Disney, Larry Flynt, the Japanese; but they can't do it because of the Uncanny Valley.

German Censorship

[Arancaytar]

It's a common misconception that just because we're European, by American standards socialist, and hypersensitive to nationalism/fascism, that makes us socially progressive. In fact, Germany is quite socially conservative thanks to a high average age and low participation among young voters. The Christian Democratic Union has been in power for many years (and while our version of "Christian" government isn't that of the rabid American right wing, it's still "Christian".)

For example, Germany didn't recognize same-sex unions until 2001, didn't grant them full tax benefits until 2009, and still won't call them "marriage".

My point is, "think of the children" is pretty much the ultimate ender of debates here. That's why computer games are so quick to be banned, and why no rule of common sense or human right can stand in the way of the "war on child pornography".

We have no Tea Party, but in other respects we're no better off than the US politically.

Re:German Censorship

[D4C5CE]

My point is, "think of the children" is pretty much the ultimate ender of debates here.

And you know a page out of whose (banned) book that is, while the news media does not dare to challenge politicians recycling that strategy:

As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

Godwin alert to anyone googling the author of that line...

Re:apples lockin also brakes freedoms in German la

[Elektroschock]

Why doesn't anyone have an issue with Microsoft's "lockin" for XBox games?

Because XBox is vintage technology.

there is a thing called Vertragszwang

[kubitus]

in Germany and most other Europeran countries, once you start selling something, you ought to sell it to everybody and you ought to let everybody use it the way they want ( except firearms etc.. ).

If you do not do so you run into trouble.

A car manufacturer can not limit the use of the car or use of fuel etc... So Apple will have to come up with something.

And to declare Porn as unfit for iPad but not Violence show how most people tick!

They do want to separate you from the fun, but not from the misery!

Re:there is a thing called Vertragszwang

[globalist]

Exactly. I am currently sueing Mercedes because the car I bought from them won't work with unleaded fuel.

Re:there is a thing called Vertragszwang

[kubitus]

ever ruined a computer by running porn? seems to be typical American thinking! Sue if it does not work for a moron - but disable somebody's alternate use because you don't like it!

Re:there is a thing called Vertragszwang

[globalist]

You sir are making no sense. And I am european by the way.

Re:there is a thing called Vertragszwang

[kubitus]

Maybe you can learn the difference between a physical/technical fact

and a human desire or wishful thinking

SIR!

BTW: British ??

Re:apples lockin also brakes freedoms in German la

[KDR_11k]

The approval standards have become less strict but they still require a basic quality assurance test and an official rating.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Apple's competitors whining to government

[gig]

Obviously, Apple's competitors have their large number of lobbyists out full force. The amount of whining at Apple's success lately is fucking incredible.

If only they put as much energy into making stuff users want they might be able to compete.

The idea that there is censorship on iPhone is ridiculous. It has an HTML5 browser. It has about 25 different bookstores. You can load any media from any source into iTunes. There are apps with streaming movies, audio, radio.

There are HTML5 iPhone apps from major pornography vendors. Pornography websites even call standard ISO MPEG-4 movies the "iPod/iPhone version".

If the C API on iPhone is censored, what about Android? There are no native C apps on Android. The C API is closed. That's 100% censorship by Google! Call the government! There is absolutely no content on Android!

Are you getting rediculous?

[mrwolf007]

A magazine has a very finite space unlike the appstore which is only limited by disk space and thus practicly limitless.
But i'm sure you can haggle a flat rate with a magazine for advertisement and get a page every issue.

Don't use Apple

[Snaller]

Simple.

Google is sure to release a GPadd - get that instead - and the Nexus One phone. Censorship problem solved.

Re:The internet is locked on an Iphone

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, since last month you have been able to install Opera mini on iPhones. (AC cause I've already modded on this page)

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, you little...!!!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

...and on the side of the ring :

[DrYak]

"This is the country that has banned Wikileaks"

...versus that country which banned depictions of nipples or even breast-feeding on the ground of "indecency".