Depublish

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Depublishing is the removal of Internet pages from the publicly accessible area, which the online offers ( telemedia ) of the public broadcasters in Germany began in the summer of 2009 for their archive holdings and, since September 1, 2010, also for ongoing reporting, usually after a period of seven days carry out. The Internet pages depublished in accordance with the Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (RStV) do not have to be deleted during this process, but they are no longer publicly available.

According to ARD assessment, the German process for depublishing public law Internet pages is the most complex worldwide. Even has BBC , reduced their online offerings to justify their fees finance, in UK Applied Public Value Test - model of the German three-stage test - but only applies to major projects. In contrast to the German broadcasters, the ORF does not subsequently check existing offers. Estimates of the total amount of de-publishing of older public service Internet content amount to over a million online documents.

term

Depublish is a neologism from the word publish (publish, from the Latin publicus , public) and the Latin prefix de- (down, away, down, miss-). The term, which is not used in the legal bases , was hardly used before 2010. Earlier definitions referred to depublishing as "unpublished" to the removal of factually incorrect content from the Internet without comment instead of correction or, as a technical information technology term, to the withdrawal of an article visible on a website without deleting it in the repository . Technically, the latter meaning applies to the use of the term in the discussion about the depublishing of public Internet offers.

The formation of the term contains a paradoxical element, since the terms “publish” or “publish” do not actually allow this form of antonyms to be formed: A statement made public through publication cannot be withdrawn by not continuing to disseminate it, but only through it their withdrawal . Therefore, a person harmed by untrue media reports can regularly assert a right to a reply or a correction (→ right to correction ).

Such a corrective revocation is not meant when depublishing public law content. The use of the term by the employees and committees of the public service broadcasting responsible for organizing the de-publishing made the term a catchphrase in the summer of 2010 , which, due to its contradictions, tends to criticize the designated removal of Internet pages (→ Section Reactions ). What was published on the Internet could not be withdrawn, this was conceptually "silly" and a "fight against windmills" ( Johnny Haeusler ). De-publishing was identified early on as a possible bad word of 2010.

prehistory

Broadcasting financing models in Europe:
  • License fee
  • License fee and advertising
  • License fee, advertising and state
  • Advertising (Luxembourg)
  • Advertising and state
  • State (Estonia)
  • unknown

    • A complaint from the Association of Private Broadcasting and Telemedia (VPRT) to the EU Commission in 2003 described the German broadcasting fee as inadmissible state aid under Article 87 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EGV) - this corresponds to Article 107 (1 ) today of the FEU Treaty. This financing is competition-distorting and disadvantaged private companies, especially since the public service broadcasters do not have a narrow functional mandate for their activities - especially in the online area. The federal states and the broadcasters themselves had never considered the license fee financing as state aid , but the EU Commission followed the interpretation of the VPRT and demanded the abolition of this aid or the fulfillment of the exception criteria of Article 86 (2) of the EC Treaty. In the summer of 2007 there was an open conflict:

    “When the ARD published its digital strategy in mid-June 2007, its plans to significantly expand its activities in the online area and digital offerings met with fierce protests from private competition, both the Association of Private Broadcasting and Telemedia (VPRT) and the Federal Association German newspaper publisher (BDZV), whose members want to operate (online) television themselves in the future. "

    The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany , however, guarantees in Article 5 “the freedom of the press and the freedom of reporting through radio and film”, and although public service broadcasting is not explicitly mentioned there, this includes its reporting and press products. On September 11, 2007, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the mandate of public broadcasting also extended to new digital offers and contained a “development guarantee” (already stated in earlier broadcasting judgments by the court). According to this, public service broadcasting on the Internet should ensure the variety of offers and the reliability of information - it is awarded a “genuine online contract”. "The highest court fee ruling was seen as a victory for public broadcasting."

    The so-called state aid compromise of 2007 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the EU Commission stated that by June 1, 2009, “the functional mandate of the public broadcasting corporations should be adequately specified” and, in particular, its extension to the online offer will be defined. This compromise prevented proceedings before the European Court of Justice that might have "called into question broadcast funding across the EU".

    Legal bases

    target

    On June 1, 2009, the 12th Interstate Broadcasting Agreement (12th RÄStV) came into force, through which the federal states both wanted to meet their obligations from the aid compromise and to ensure the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the public media.

    The 12th RÄStV should transfer the traditional mandate of public law to the online area in full, since the "density of households that are technically connected to the Internet and use offers available via the Internet" has grown significantly The development guarantee confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court demands this. However, in order to meet the requirements of the EU Commission, one aspect must be particularly taken into account:

    “Not unlike previously required for public broadcasting programs, public broadcasting telemedia must also differ on the basis of their state contractual mandate from commercial offers that are available not only from private broadcasters but also from a large number of other market players via the Internet be provided. "

    Broadcast term

    However, the 12th RÄStV also included a change in the definition of broadcasting . In § 2, paragraph 1, of the new RStV it says:

    “Broadcasting is a linear information and communication service; it is the event and distribution of offers in moving images or sound along a broadcast schedule using electromagnetic vibrations intended for the general public and for simultaneous reception. "

    The new thing about it, explains the reasoning for the 12th RÄStV, is “the clarification that broadcasting is a linear information and communication service. The addition of the criterion 'for simultaneous reception' differentiates broadcasting offers from on-demand offers. “Simultaneous reception” is also to be understood as a transmission that is subject to short time delays for technical reasons alone. ”The linearity criterion, for example, excludes the independent presentation of user-generated content and the form of an online community . The exclusion of on-demand offers is the basis for the definition of dwell times for public Internet offers (→ section dwell times ). Without the broad understanding of “simultaneously”, which allows short time delays “for technical reasons”, this redefinition would not allow public law content to be accessed via the Internet.

    The public broadcasters are no longer allowed in the 12th version of the RStV, which has been in effect since 2009, in accordance with Section 11d, “non-broadcast-related press-like offers” and “comprehensive local reporting”. This section also includes an addendum with various types of offers that are not permitted for the online presence of public broadcasters, including for example file sharing sites , route planners and classified ads .

    Length of stay

    On December 18, 2008, in the 12th RÄStV, the state governments agreed that the usual length of stay for public law websites would allow broadcasters to make programs accompanying programs available for seven days. Exceptions apply according to Section 11d, Paragraph 2, RStV, among other things, for football coverage of games in the 1st and 2nd Bundesliga , which can only be accessed for 24 hours, and for archives "with historical and cultural content" that can be online indefinitely .

    According to the reasoning for the 12th RÄStV, it applies to contemporary and cultural-historical content that its "provision in the form of telemedia corresponds to the democratic, social and cultural needs of society". The restriction of the football coverage is justified with "higher [n] costs for the acquisition of additional rights" for a longer accessibility, which should be avoided "in the interest of the license fee payers".

    In order to satisfy the requirements of the EU Commission with regard to the specification of its functional mandate without interfering with its constitutional independence at the same time, the federal states prescribed the three-stage test for the public-law broadcasters, the procedure with which the correspondence of offer and mandate in should be checked in each individual case. However, it left the decision on the existence of old offers and the introduction of new concepts in the Internet and in radio to the bodies of the broadcasting corporations themselves, the broadcasting councils . These also decide on length of stay concepts for online offers.

    Procedure

    Three-step test

    The responsible broadcasting councils (television council, radio council) decide, in a procedure divided into five phases, whether or not an offer meets the three-stage test criteria, namely

    "1. to what extent the offer corresponds to the democratic, social and cultural needs of society,
    2. to what extent the offer contributes to the journalistic competition in qualitative terms and
    3. what financial expenditure is required for the offer. "

    - 12. RÄStV, Article 1, Paragraph 12 (on § 11f, Paragraph 4, RStV).

    If a broadcasting council determines that an offer is new or significantly changed and that it is neither legally mandated nor prohibited by law (phase 1), it opens the procedure (phase 2) on the basis of a specific description of the offer, the central element of which is the collection of information (Phase 3), on which the decision of the Broadcasting Council including the reasons (Phase 4) and the final examination by the responsible state government as legal supervision (Phase 5) are based.

    The information gathering phase includes, in particular, obtaining statements from competing providers and the reports of independent experts on the influence of the planned offer on the competitive situation. Statements and business data from private competitors (which are taken into account as part of the procedure, but not published) could say, for example, that “offers already on the market will be completely displaced”, which would affect the second three-step test criterion. According to the three-stage test, the determination of the “democratic, social and cultural needs of society” and the quality of an offer with regard to journalistic competition are also important elements in answering the question of whether a specific offer falls under the mandate of the public legal broadcasting falls or not. Only after all of this has been weighed against the costs required for an offer can a broadcasting council decide on the admissibility of an offer, justify the decision and hand it over to the respective state government responsible for legal supervision: "The legal supervision checks compliance with the procedural rules, but does not take any own content-related assessment (otherwise it would be a constitutionally inadmissible 'technical supervision' in the broadcasting sector). "

    The results of the subsequent three-step tests for the offers that were already in place were published in summer 2010. Among other things, the Saarland Broadcasting Corporation summarized the considerations on media use on which its length of stay concept was based :

    “Viewers and listeners use media libraries to watch or listen to programs again. To do this, you choose functions such as a program calendar or 'program missed?' or search for access via the well-known shipment brand. Based on the culturally “learned” broadcast week, the so-called “seven-day catch-up” has established itself as the minimum period of provision, especially with regard to video usage in many European countries. […] While this type of use is based on the pattern of using linear media in a so-called lean-back attitude, internet-specific use of image, text and multimedia content has been established that has no relation to broadcast weeks or program calendars and corresponds to an active lean-forward attitude. This content is often accessed via search functions or researched on a topic-related basis. As a rule, they are provided in multimedia combinations of various web-specific forms of representation in the telemedia. "

    Due to this distinction between two usage attitudes, the public service broadcaster usually makes a large part of its online offers available for seven days (lean-back attitude), another part for a longer period, for example one year (lean-forward attitude) .

    Reactions

    After the decision of the 12th RÄStV, there were several media debates in 2009 and 2010 about the three-stage tests and the resulting restrictions on public service online offers. Private media companies and publishers' associations expressed less criticism of ZDF than of ARD, which has a total of 37 three-stage tests, which are much more complex. During this time, representatives of the public and private media often met in panel discussions. The new legal regulations were criticized with fighting terms such as “ Morgenthau Plan ” or “Censorship”, and private publishers often used the catchphrase “electronic press” for the online services of the broadcasters.

    After the completion of the telemedia concept in summer 2010, the length of time different television genres were in the media libraries and the deletion of online contributions became much discussed topics "which cause anger among Internet users and are ostentatiously regretted by those responsible for the broadcasters". The ZDF announced - like some ARD stations - the depublishing of around 80 percent of its online offers and put this at around 93,500 individual documents. ZDF director Markus Schächter hoped that this would put an end to the debate about public service online activity:

    “The interests of publishers and commercial TV broadcasters were thus largely taken into account. At the same time, the audit showed that the effects of our offers on the business models of commercial organizers are marginal. "

    Depublishing is sometimes viewed critically by politicians, for example the Saarland SPD rejects it according to its program, as does the Brandenburg pirate party. The Federal Parliament's Internet and Digital Society Enquete Commission (EIDG), made up of 17 experts and 17 members of parliament from all parliamentary groups, recommended in January 2013 that the obligation to publish as stipulated in the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty be repealed. However, representatives of the government coalition only wanted to see the seven-day rule lifted for offers that represent "qualitative added value" compared to existing offers from private providers.

    Party reports

    When the first contributions disappeared from their online offerings, the editors of the public broadcasters were initially faced with inquiries relating to the alleged deletion of Internet pages. To explain the process and to clarify the difference to the deletion of Internet pages, they used the term depublishing and were exposed to critical opinions of the public, which were then anticipated in public statements:

    "Many users are outraged that content that was created and published with their license fees will no longer be available from September 1, 2010."

    The reporting on the three-step test procedure was so negative in the spring of 2010 that the committee chairman conference of the working group of the state media authorities felt compelled to complain about the poor quality of the reporting. Among other things, reports were “shortened, incorrect and one-sided from confidential documents”, so that “the impression is created that the committees are more or less autocratically and interest-oriented avoiding transparency.” At the same time, however, reference has already been made to the influence of the lobbying of publishers and private broadcasters , in whose interest the extensive curtailment of public service online activity is taking place, but with the result they are not satisfied. In the spring of 2010, media journalist Stefan Niggemeier pointed out the conflict of interest between private media providers and public media, which problematizes the reporting of both groups as biased .

    The predominantly critical reporting on the depublishing, which was initiated in the summer after the telemedia concept was adopted, largely corresponded to the relationship that the depublishing editors have to their work, as Niggemeier made clear in one of the first depublishing newspaper reports:

    “But there is a lot of frustration to be heard from the editorial offices - and worry about how something like this will change the relationship to the Internet as a medium. [...] A colleague fears that if the content is only allowed to be online to a limited extent anyway, the willingness to produce complex content at all could decline. "

    The reports by the public service providers on their own account therefore also expressed dissatisfaction with the activity of the depublishing and referred to the legal obligation of the broadcasters to do this. After allegations by the BDZV that the depublishing of ARD online content did not go far enough and was therefore a farce , ARD chairman Peter Boudgoust summarized that ARD had depublished more than a million Internet pages, including around 80 percent of the original pages from tagesschau.de . The ARD did not want the procedure, but “adhered to the law when it was carried out”. The price for this would "unfortunately have to be paid primarily by the user". In July 2010, at the same time as the decision-making phase for the telemedia concepts, the now no longer available website www.depubliken.de was created as a protest against the de-publishing.

    Slight criticism of the three-step test was also expressed by representatives of private media groups who described it as a “relatively pointless procedure”. Because of the unpublished content, “no publisher deserves another euro”. The RTL Group announced that "legal steps against some online publications by ARD and ZDF are still being considered."

    Depub.org

    Header of the former website depub.org protesting against the de-     publishing , September 2010
    Screenshot of the depub.org presentation of the archive (1999–2010) by tagesschau.de in September 2010

    A new wave of public attention learned the Depublizieren of public Internet services after the implementation of this concepts developed in September 2010: After the BitTorrent - download portal The Pirate Bay in July 2010, a Archives of the resulting 1999-2010 Article by tagesschau.de was offered, the website depub.org put a preparation of this archive content online for free retrieval on August 20, 2010, so that users could access the articles in a similar way as in the version on tagesschau.de before it was depublished. The offer included the function of continuously archiving current articles from tagesschau.de and keeping them available on depub.org . Therefore depub.org also acted as a mirror for some articles that had not yet been depublished by tagesschau.de .

    Numerous German-language media reported about depub.org , mainly from mid-September 2010. It was emphasized that depub.org was trying to "also access the already deleted content of other public service media" and was relying on the help of their editors: "We are confident that there are people in the other editorial offices who do not want the articles to disappear from the network." Robin Meyer-Lucht quoted a spokeswoman for the NDR: "The NDR will use all legal means against Depub .org proceed as far as this is possible. ”In July 2010 , indications of a possible unauthorized republication of unpublished tagesschau.de content had already come from the editorial team. Depub.org claimed to have made inquiries to the editorial team before republishing the tagesschau.de content. The response from the editorial team warned that “an archive could affect the copyrights of third parties, for example agencies or photographers, and it is therefore our own risk to operate such an archive.” According to this, depub.org had “reason to believe, that the Tagesschau.de editorial team has no major problems with the archive. "

    Depub.org announced archives for all broadcasting corporations (except for the SR ) in the ARD .

    Zeit editor Kai Biermann described the depub.org campaign as moral courage in the “public interest”, although it was clearly illegal. Depublishing, on the other hand, is "an expression of the selfish interest politics of private companies." Due to the method of the "calculated violation of the law for idealistic reasons", the depub.org activists were often assigned a " Robin Hood manner".

    Depub.org announced that it would use br-online.de , hr-online.de , mdr.de , ndr.de , rbb-online.de , radiobremen.de , swr.de , wdr. de and heute.de want to set up archives. Publicly available contributions would be saved. For content that has already been published, however, one has to rely on the feed of archive data by editors.

    The chairwoman of the NDR Broadcasting Council, the Schleswig-Holstein CDU politician Dagmar Countess Kerssenbrock , described depub.org as an “example of creative anarchy on the Internet” and for the great interest in the content of tagesschau.de . Therefore “there will always be people who can find a way to make this content available. Websites like depub.org are proof of the questionable nature of the three-step test . ”The online editorial team of the Tagesschau assume that the content of the domain depub.org , which is anonymous in Canada, was collected when the articles that have since been de-published were publicly available. However , according to tagesschau.de editor-in-chief Jörg Sadrozinski , the illegal use of the tagesschau.de posts by depub.org could lead to “the politicians or the lobbyists in the publishing houses realizing that such measures are simply pointless, that the Internet never forgets ".

    When the domain depub.org was no longer available in mid-October 2010, the service moved to depub.info for a short time . Soon, however, this page was no longer available either. Between November 10, 2010 and July 13, 2011, when a Twitter message was sent to the tagesschau.de archive, there were no public messages from the depub.org activists.

    Evaluation & Berlin Demands 2014

    In July 2014, the Berlin House of Representatives called on the Senate to review the five-year practice and to abolish the obligation to de-publish.

    ZDF reform concept

    Since May 2019, public broadcasters have been allowed to develop new digital offers, provided they are based on a concept approved by the supervisory bodies.

    ZDF presented a reform concept for this in 2019. According to this, archives of contemporary and cultural history with informative, educational and cultural telemedia should in principle be offered for an unlimited period of time. On the other hand, educational content from the fields of science, technology, theology or ethics, political education, the environment, work and social affairs as well as cultural content that document cultural achievements in their social context should be depublished after five years.

    A total of 17 statements were received on the reform concept by October 28th. Among other things, the education union GEW, the library association and Wikimedia called for a rethink in a joint open letter addressed to the ZDF television council . This reform concept does not do justice to "the important role of public service broadcasting in the German educational landscape of the 21st century".

    See also

    Web links

    Wiktionary: de-publish  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

    Individual evidence

    1. ↑ a b c d Stefan Niggemeier: Depublishing. The void behind the link . In: FAZ.net , July 19, 2010, accessed on September 15, 2010.
    2. ^ A b c Marika Bent: Reconciling Tones: Representatives of private and public broadcasters and publishers discussed . In: Märkische Allgemeine , September 9, 2010, accessed on September 25, 2010.
    3. ↑ a b c Stefan Krempl: Public and private lawyers practice "a little peace" . In: Heise online , September 6, 2010, accessed on September 25, 2010.
    4. ↑ What is ... Lexicon: Depublieren . In: drweb.de , June 20, 2004, accessed on September 15, 2010: “Do you know the expression 'depublish'? You could also say 'unpublished', but that doesn't sound very elegant. What is meant is that reports, news or articles that were obviously false, lied or made up are not supplemented by a correction, as one would in a newspaper, they simply disappear, are deleted and deleted from the web. "
    5. ↑ Federal Office of Administration : Creation of a workflow concept . Published by the Federal Office for Information Technology , August 6, 2004, accessed on September 15, 2010 (PDF; 590 kB), p. 38.
    6. ↑ See depublishing . In: Neusprech.org , September 12, 2010, accessed September 16, 2010.
    7. ↑ a b c Maik Gizinski: The fight of the network activists against depublishing . In: Zapp (NDR television) , September 22, 2010 (video, 7:11 minutes), accessed on September 25, 2010.
    8. ^ Enno Park: Free Tagesschau Archive against Depublishing ( Memento from September 16, 2010 in the Internet Archive ). In: YuccaTreePost , September 14, 2010, accessed September 15, 2010.
    9. ↑ a b c d Thomas Mike Peters: What is the three-step test? . In: Telemedicus , February 16, 2009, accessed September 15, 2010.
    10. ↑ a b Dieter stop: ARD . In: Institute for Media and Communication Policy (Ed.): Mediadatenbank mediadb.eu . May 17, 2010, accessed September 25, 2010.
    11. ↑ BVerfG: Broadcasting Fee Determination. BVerfG, judgment of the First Senate of September 11, 2007 - 1 BvR 2270/05, 1 BvR 809/06, 1 BvR 830/06 - , BVerfGE 119, 181 ; see. BVerfG: 5th Broadcasting Decision / Baden-Württemberg. BVerfG, decision of the First Senate of March 24, 1987 - 1 BvR 147, 478/86 - , BVerfGE 74, 297 and BVerfG: 8th Broadcasting decision / cable groschen : BVerfG, decision of the First Senate of February 22, 1994, Az .: 1 BvL 30/88 , BVerfGE 90, 60 . All in: Telemedicus.info , accessed on September 15, 2010, and in BVerfGE .
    12. ↑ a b c d e f Justification for the Twelfth State Treaty amending State Treaty on Broadcasting . In: Institute for Copyright and Media Law , accessed on September 15, 2010.
    13. ↑ a b c Twelfth State Treaty on Amendment of State Treaty on Broadcasting . In: Institute for Copyright and Media Law , accessed on September 15, 2010.
    14. ↑ In the State Broadcasting Treaty in the version of the eleventh State Broadcasting Treaty . In: Institute for Copyright and Media Law , accessed on September 18, 2010, the corresponding passage was: “Broadcasting is the event and distribution of performances of all kinds in words, in sound and in images, intended for the general public, using electromagnetic vibrations without Connection line or along or by means of a conductor. "
    15. ↑ For Web 2.0 shares received in public law Internet offers, starting with the possibility of users to comment on articles, the SR pointed out that such " opportunities for participation [...] are naturally expected nowadays" and justified them in the sense of RStV with the "communicative need for mutual exchange of opinions, experiences and information". However, the editorial support of user contributions remains a condition for such offers. Telemedia concept. SR-online.de . In: SR-online.de , April 9, 2010, p. 48f., Accessed on September 18, 2010 (PDF; 1.77 MB).
    16. ^ Interstate broadcasting treaty in the version of the twelfth interstate broadcasting treaty. Annex to Section 11d Paragraph 5 Clause 4 of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty: Negative list of public telemedia . In: Institute for Copyright and Media Law , accessed on September 18, 2010.
    17. ↑ Manfred Kops, Karen Sokoll, Viola Bensinger: Framework conditions for the implementation of the three-step test. Expert opinion prepared for the Broadcasting Council of West German Broadcasting . In: Working papers of the Institute for Broadcasting Economics , Issue 252, Cologne / Berlin 2009 (PDF; 3.3 MB).
    18. ↑ ARD information on the three-step test. Why, why, why - and how: What you need to know about the three-step test . In: ARD.de , May 27, 2009 ( Memento from June 8, 2010 in the Internet Archive ).
    19. ↑ Telemedia concept. SR-online.de . In: SR-online.de , April 9, 2010, p. 38f., Accessed on September 18, 2010 (PDF; 1.77 MB).
    20. ^ A b c d Dieterschlag, Christian Bartels: ZDF . In: Institute for Media and Communication Policy (Ed.): Mediadatenbank mediadb.eu . August 10, 2010. Retrieved September 25, 2010.
    21. ↑ ZDF press release: Three-step test for ZDF online offers completed. Intendant Schächter: Restrictions for users . In: Unternehmens.ZDF.de , June 25, 2010, accessed on September 25, 2010 (PDF; 11 kB).
    22. ↑ Government program of the SPD Saar 2012 - 2017. (PDF; 627 kB) March 12, 2012, p. 27 , archived from the original on October 31, 2014 ; Retrieved May 2, 2012 .
    23. ↑ https://wiki.piratenbrandenburg.de/images/2/2f/Wahlprogramm.pdf page 42
    24. ↑ Enquete successfully completed work , on the website of the EIDG of the German Bundestag from January 29, 2013, accessed on February 6, 2013
    25. ↑ a b c Jörg Sadrozinski: Depublieren ( Memento from July 28, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) In: blog.tagesschau.de , July 20, 2010.
    26. ↑ a b c GVK chairman calls for differentiated reporting on three-stage test procedures . In: ARD.de , March 16, 2010 ( Memento from May 24, 2010 in the Internet Archive ).
    27. ^ Diemut Roether: Cold media war. How the three-step test is instrumentalized. In: epd medien No. 13. Evangelical Press Service , February 20, 2010, archived from the original on February 27, 2010 ; Retrieved November 22, 2013 .
    28. ^ Stefan Niggemeier: The misery of the debate about ARD and ZDF . In: Stefan-Niggemeier.de , February 23, 2010, accessed on September 15, 2010.
    29. ↑ State treaty forces the deletion of online content. Why you can't find what you're looking for anymore . In: tagesschau.de , July 20, 2010, accessed on September 15, 2010.
    30. ↑ Peter Boudgoust: “Wannabe Scandal” . In: ARD.de , July 20, 2010 ( Memento from July 22, 2010 in the Internet Archive ).
    31. ↑ Suddenly and unexpectedly she passed away. The publication ( memento of July 26, 2010 in the Internet Archive ). In: depubliegen.de , July 21, 2010, accessed on September 15, 2010. See Maik Gizinski: The deletion of Internet archives ( Memento from September 10, 2010 in the Internet Archive ). In: Zapp (NDR television) , September 8, 2010 (video, 7:38 minutes), accessed on September 15, 2010.
    32. ↑ An early report: The depublished tagesschau.de archive . In: Netzpolitik.org , September 14, 2010, accessed on September 15, 2010.
    33. ↑ Depub.org messages, quoted from: Tom Strohschneider : Tagesschau.de archive: depub.org and civil courage . In: DerFreitag.de , September 15, 2010, accessed on September 15, 2010.
    34. ↑ Robin Meyer-Lucht: NDR wants to proceed with “all legal means” against Depub.org . In: Carta.info , September 15, 2010, accessed September 15, 2010.
    35. ↑ a b c d Kai Biermann: Depublishing. "Depub" wants to archive all public law . In: Zeit Online , September 16, 2010, accessed on September 16, 2010.
    36. ^ Kai Biermann: Media Policy. Free archives for informed citizens! . In: Zeit Online , September 15, 2010, accessed September 15, 2010.
    37. ↑ Depublishing and Redepublishing . In: Erlösungenes.wordpress.com , September 17, 2010, accessed September 25, 2010.
    38. ↑ Marcel-André Casasola Merkle: De: publica 2010 . In: 137b intermittently , September 15, 2010, accessed on September 25, 2010.
    39. ↑ a b c press release: Chairwoman of the NDR Broadcasting Council at depub.org . In: NDR.de , September 17, 2010, accessed on September 18, 2010.
    40. ↑ depub.org blocked (update). In: Heise Online. October 11, 2010, archived from the original on April 1, 2011 ; Retrieved April 1, 2011 .
    41. ↑ Zappredaktion: The dead live longer - or do they? . In: zapp.blog.ndr.de , March 23, 2011, accessed on September 4. Compare the Twitter account depub , from which no tweets were received between November 10, 2010 and July 13, 2011.
    42. ↑ Berlin Parliament: Public law content should be permanently online , Heise online , July 6, 2014. Accessed July 7, 2014.
    43. ^ A b c Leonhard Dobusch: Open letter against the depublication of educational content of the ZDF. In: netzpolitik.org. November 20, 2019, accessed November 23, 2019 .
    44. ↑ a b Three-step test. Procedure for the ZDF telemedia change concept (2019-2020). Opinions. ZDF, November 7, 2019, accessed on November 23, 2019 .
    45. ↑ Status and development of the telemedia offers of the ZDF as well as the change concept of the telemedia offers. ZDF, August 12, 2019, accessed on November 23, 2019 .
    46. ↑ Telemedia change concept of the ZDF. 2019, accessed November 23, 2019 .
    47. ↑ The German educational landscape calls for a rethink at ZDF. In: Wikimedia. November 20, 2019, accessed November 23, 2019 .
    48. ↑ Open letter to ZDF television council education has no expiration date. In: tagesspiegel.de. November 20, 2019, accessed November 23, 2019 .
    This article was added to the list of excellent articles on November 20, 2010 in this version .