6 ms·

In my (German) opinion, the court did a great job by stating only that they need ads in general but leaving the amount undetermined. Most likely, the DWD will

In my (German) opinion, the court did a great job by stating only that they need ads in general but leaving the amount undetermined. Most likely, the DWD will show a one-time ad to everyone activating the free weather service. Most likely, they can even make it 5 minutes of uninterrupted ads, because everyone knows that it's a one-time thing and it's easy enough to ignore your phone for 5 minutes if you can choose the time when the ad plays. And afterwards, the DWD has realized a year worth of ad revenue per user and is free to provide the service for free and ad free like they used to. So while technically WetterOnline won, it won't have much consequences. That said, I myself am a paid subscriber for WetterOnline because their worldwide real-time radar videos are super helpful, and the German weather service obviously provides data only for Germany. So I'm not really sure why they felt the need to sue in the first place.

zahrc 7y ago
It sets a dangerous precedence tho and Germans are already paying for it indirectly with taxes, since DWD is mostly run privately, but it’s resources and workforce is public. What’s next? Will the ARD and ZDF Apps become subscription based because of Netflix and amazon prime, even tho we pay for GEZ already?
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  The "next" already happened to a degree, quite a while ago. ARD and ZDF have online archives ("mediathek") where most content must be de-publicized (removed) after a while because the commercial competitors bitched to the politicians who make the rules for the public broadcasters. But now there is a ZDF channel on amazon prime that I can pay for again after having paid my mandatory fees (GEZ) already, yay. The online offerings of ARD and ZDF also had and have to remove a ton of old content (articles and such), and had to discontinue a lot of services, especially interactive services such as chat platforms, that weren't directly connected to their basic information mandate. And in 2017 some commercial newspapers successfully won a court decision against the ARD's tagesshow app (tagesschau being their flagship prime time newscast), meaning the app (and also the tagesschau website) had to remove a lot of texts that were "not directly related" to the content of their news shows[1]. Why were they successful? Because the law already prohibits the ARD and ZDF from being to "press-like". [1] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Urteil-gegen-Tagesschau-App-nun-rechtskraeftig-3926334.html https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Urteil-gegen-Tagessc...
  - account42 7y ago
    ... and the main reason for the ARD/ZDF to have useless apps and content on their websites in the first place is so that they can demand not-tax from everyone instead of only those who still own a TV.
    - rndgermandude 7y ago
      Sorry, but this is just not the case. The mediathek apps are still rather useful, which have their live broadcasts and also an archive of their content. Most stuff, except for live TV such as football (soccer) games, I almost always watch on demand in their mediathek. I regularly use tagesschau.de, I regularly listen to their radio stations, via apps. I personally think the ARD/ZDF are important to have, and also keep the commercial players on their feet a little. And provide a lot of programming, like documentaries and information shows that are good to have but that commercial players wouldn't touch (or if e.g. RTL did their own versions, I would dread the outcome). I also think the GEZ fees are a little too high, and they waste a ton of money in their bureaucracy. I'd rather have the BBC (which Boris wants to dismantle) than the ARD/ZDF, but this is the next best thing.
      - account42 7y ago
        I couldn't disagree more about the ARD/ZDF being useful. I'd even go as far as saying they are harmful (biased news, promoting gambling, ...). But we can agree to disagree on that. What I think is absolutely not OK is the current funding method using a compoulsory payment. If you say that public TV is beneficial to society then it should be funded through regular taxes which are collected equitably (ie. based on income). If however publicly funded TV is not a benefit to society then there should be a way to opt out. There was before ARD/ZDF added these online services.
Zenbit_UX 7y ago
Let me frame this in another way, the court acted in the best interest of a private company over the interests of its own people.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Courts are decidedly not a political instrument, their judgements should be by law, not by utilitarian considerations.
  - etrabroline 7y ago
    The courts are run by people in the same unpopular political establishment as the rest of the country. Yes, they absolutely are a political instrument, although some people like to pretend otherwise when they get their policies undemocratically rammed into law through the courts. All legal systems make utilitarian considerations. Furthermore, legal systems like Germany's are even more respectful of common sense than ones based on English common law.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      > The courts are run by people in the same unpopular political establishment as the rest of the country. I don't disagree, but that's de facto. Nominally, they're independent and Germany doesn't rely on judge's guesstimates as much, they are supposed to apply the laws, not create them, which is why the German Constitutional Court has been criticized for becoming politically activist instead of remaining neutral. Since they're de facto appointed by the political establishment, you can't expect them to not be carefully selected for "obedience by accident" (they're independent, they just happen to think the same way), but you can also not do it too obviously if you don't want to shake the cage too much or people might disregard the courts completely. Government institutions with mission creep issues that start to grow is a common problem in Germany, and the courts regularly tell them to stop, this isn't a new development.
  - xxpor 7y ago
    That's debatable. Literally. It's part of the civil vs common law debate.

zahrc 7y ago

It sets a dangerous precedence tho and Germans are already paying for it indirectly with taxes, since DWD is mostly run privately, but it’s resources and workforce is public. What’s next? Will the ARD and ZDF Apps become subscription based because of Netflix and amazon prime, even tho we pay for GEZ already?

rndgermandude 7y ago
The "next" already happened to a degree, quite a while ago. ARD and ZDF have online archives ("mediathek") where most content must be de-publicized (removed) after a while because the commercial competitors bitched to the politicians who make the rules for the public broadcasters. But now there is a ZDF channel on amazon prime that I can pay for again after having paid my mandatory fees (GEZ) already, yay. The online offerings of ARD and ZDF also had and have to remove a ton of old content (articles and such), and had to discontinue a lot of services, especially interactive services such as chat platforms, that weren't directly connected to their basic information mandate. And in 2017 some commercial newspapers successfully won a court decision against the ARD's tagesshow app (tagesschau being their flagship prime time newscast), meaning the app (and also the tagesschau website) had to remove a lot of texts that were "not directly related" to the content of their news shows[1]. Why were they successful? Because the law already prohibits the ARD and ZDF from being to "press-like". [1] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Urteil-gegen-Tagesschau-App-nun-rechtskraeftig-3926334.html https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Urteil-gegen-Tagessc...
- account42 7y ago
  ... and the main reason for the ARD/ZDF to have useless apps and content on their websites in the first place is so that they can demand not-tax from everyone instead of only those who still own a TV.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    Sorry, but this is just not the case. The mediathek apps are still rather useful, which have their live broadcasts and also an archive of their content. Most stuff, except for live TV such as football (soccer) games, I almost always watch on demand in their mediathek. I regularly use tagesschau.de, I regularly listen to their radio stations, via apps. I personally think the ARD/ZDF are important to have, and also keep the commercial players on their feet a little. And provide a lot of programming, like documentaries and information shows that are good to have but that commercial players wouldn't touch (or if e.g. RTL did their own versions, I would dread the outcome). I also think the GEZ fees are a little too high, and they waste a ton of money in their bureaucracy. I'd rather have the BBC (which Boris wants to dismantle) than the ARD/ZDF, but this is the next best thing.
    - account42 7y ago
      I couldn't disagree more about the ARD/ZDF being useful. I'd even go as far as saying they are harmful (biased news, promoting gambling, ...). But we can agree to disagree on that. What I think is absolutely not OK is the current funding method using a compoulsory payment. If you say that public TV is beneficial to society then it should be funded through regular taxes which are collected equitably (ie. based on income). If however publicly funded TV is not a benefit to society then there should be a way to opt out. There was before ARD/ZDF added these online services.

Zenbit_UX 7y ago

Let me frame this in another way, the court acted in the best interest of a private company over the interests of its own people.

luckylion 7y ago
Courts are decidedly not a political instrument, their judgements should be by law, not by utilitarian considerations.
- etrabroline 7y ago
  The courts are run by people in the same unpopular political establishment as the rest of the country. Yes, they absolutely are a political instrument, although some people like to pretend otherwise when they get their policies undemocratically rammed into law through the courts. All legal systems make utilitarian considerations. Furthermore, legal systems like Germany's are even more respectful of common sense than ones based on English common law.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > The courts are run by people in the same unpopular political establishment as the rest of the country. I don't disagree, but that's de facto. Nominally, they're independent and Germany doesn't rely on judge's guesstimates as much, they are supposed to apply the laws, not create them, which is why the German Constitutional Court has been criticized for becoming politically activist instead of remaining neutral. Since they're de facto appointed by the political establishment, you can't expect them to not be carefully selected for "obedience by accident" (they're independent, they just happen to think the same way), but you can also not do it too obviously if you don't want to shake the cage too much or people might disregard the courts completely. Government institutions with mission creep issues that start to grow is a common problem in Germany, and the courts regularly tell them to stop, this isn't a new development.
- xxpor 7y ago
  That's debatable. Literally. It's part of the civil vs common law debate.