German collection society GEMA wins against Youtube at court

[Skybird]

In a dispute that is going on since over two years and that went to court last summer, last year this article was given to explain the situation and the case:
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/publishing/gema-under-fire-for-royalties-dispute-with-1005250002.story

Today, the Landgericht Hamburg came to a verdict, in favour of GEMA. Youtube is required to delete all titles that are property of GEMA contractors: lyricists, song writers, musicians, composer etc. The püenalty for not complying with any such GEMA demand is up to 250,000 Euros and/or up to 6 months prison.

The case is seen as having most profound relevance for the handling of copyrights on the web in general.

GEMA itself has come under fire as well for having abused its position to demands fees for content by authgors who are not even contractors of GEMA. REulings on when to pay fees and when not are issues for ongoing dispoutes in various areas of the public sphere: using music in doctor's offices, discos, warehouses, etc. The rules are not consistent.

GEMA wants a fee per stream/download of a GEMA-assiociuated title, while Yiutube has just offerd a flatrate payment. GEMA also demands access to information about inner business procedures and financial numbers of Youtube in a bet - as I see it - to gain more information than it needs to collect the fees. Youtube always has refused to grant that access, I do not know by the news so far whether the verdict today touches this issue.

I'm all for copyright protection, and youtube and other platforms like that certainly are a bay for piorated trakcs and clips. But GEMA wants more than I see morally and legally as justified, and tries to gain a controlling superior position over another company's business where GEMA simply has no controlling authority at all.

They should have agreed to a flatrate fee rule that gets reviewed and corrected once a year or so. Youtuba has such deals with 24 other countries. Just Germany wanted a payment per single stream, and from what I heared over the year a hilariously high fee it is.

There are bands and artists who refuse to cooperate with gEMA, and boycot them.Sony has called GEMA to step back, since Sony suffered a drop in sales since GEMA started to block its titles at youtube - the famous blocking screen German users got used to see at Youtube quite often since several months. Several videos linked in this forum I also was unable to watch for that reason.

The case can be brpought to the next instance by Youtube. If Yioutube looses all the way, it is unclear how they will react: whether they will pay or partially shut down in Germany.

GEMA has cooperation treaties with similiar collection organisaiton in other countries, almost all the West. Cannot say at this time whether the court ruling today affect Youtube in other nations as well for that reason. In first comments today the talk is of far-reaching consequences for the internet in general without mentioning a specific a limitation of focus on Germany. Whether that limit is implied, or the case has intenraitonal relevance indeed, I currently cannot say.

[Catfish]

It is already almost shut down in Germany, most Youtube videos posted here or at other websites cannot be viewed, this also includes videos about e.g. WW1 planes or submarines, that have neither music or anything in it, but - as the text says - MIGHT have :shifty:
This is ridiculous, but the GEMA block itself, it is lead by dumb managers, not people with ideas.

I wonder whether the music industry and GEMA really lost so much money because of Youtube, or if the availability to find something almost forgotten and listen to something new did not indeed push the real sales. But they will find out this way, or the other. A little more freedom dying.

That the internet is now reduced to presenting local sites dependent on national content due to the IP adress and the domain ending your provider has, is by far the most dangerous development - never forget what Google did in China, and Google, Facebook et al. now does with your private information.








http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/AssangeandZuckerberg.jpg

[Skybird]

Hm, Catfish, let's not exaggerate. To say that most videos are blocked, is an exaggeration. However, privately posted videos using copyrighted music as soundtrack, are a form of piracy, let's face it. So is the posting of high quality music videos. My quarrel with the GEMA is not that copyrighted content should cost something - an author, a musician should get a reward if somebody downloads a creation by him. It is the most normal thing we accept when buying something in a real store, and if we carry a book or a msuic CD out of a shop wiothout paying for it it would be called shoplifting and theft - but online it all of a sudden should all be for free, and piracy should be legal? My quarrel with GEMA is where it's demands are exceeding reasonable and justifable dimensions or where it ursupates a legal position for itself that it is not legitimised to claim.

In principle I agree with this brief comment:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/youtube-urteil-schutz-vor-piraten-11724896.html (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/youtube-urteil-schutz-vor-piraten-11724896.html)


Was in der realen Welt etwas kostet, darf nicht im virtuellen Netz verschleudert werden.

^ This. :yep:

[Catfish]

Then, hearing anything on the radio, is piracy. According to .. GEMA ?

Let's also accept, the quality of videos and also music on YouTube is nothing you can compare with a real HiFi recording even if it's an MP3 recorded with 128 or 160 bits.
As well i am not really delighted to pay for e.g. a track at iTunes, where after all you get a low quality MP3 which you are allowed to copy for three times - and then you have to buy it again.
It's ok for hearing it on your cheap earplugs, but real quality you can hear aloud on your stereo equipment, or via hq headphones ? Try this, i dare you, the result isn't pretty !

So i bought a Roling Stones album a decade ago - may i still hear that, and make a backup copy ? And, am i allowed to listen to exactly this track, in form of an MP3 ? You know i already bought it back then.

IMHO the music industry has thoroughy slept through the last decades, and has nothing new to offer, except old concepts being tightened in a way you are theoretically not even legally allowed to play music on a private party anymore. Even when two people listen to a track one of both bought, the other is "legally" a pirate.
The music industry will not win hearts with that, but instead maybe even accelerating its own downfall.

You do not go into a store and buy a CD or DVD anymore, instead you just copy it from an online store, downloading it, being "generously" (!) allowed (!!) to copy it 3 times (!!!) - and they call this "buying" ?
Where is my hardcopy ?
This is making money for nothing.

There is not even a CD store left.e.g. in Goettingen, instead some drug stores now sell cheap CDs, and there's not one that i would find interesting.
In the digital age ALL is being reproducable and easy to copy, this is the inner working and indeed the meaning of a "digital society".

Since Google now owns YouTube, how could they illegaly copy all kinds of books and make it available on the internet for free ? Or now even sell it to us ? This is nothing else than piracy, and ALL companies do it, openly.
From Mickeysoft stealing and copying software adapting it to their won operating systems (Win 8 touchscreen anyone?) to politicianss faking their education certificates. So how can they expect people to behave like sheep and pay or respect them thieves ?

Exagerrated, yes, but not much, and only excelled by the very companies who call people thieves that dare to criticize their own openly illegal methods.

But i agree, YouTube is dead, at least in Germany (and China lol).
I just sincerely doubt this will lead to a higher income for companies like Sony, iTunes or the GEMA.

[Schroeder]

Then, hearing anything on the radio, is piracy. According to .. GEMA ?

Nope, because the radio station is paying fees to GEMA for each song they play.;)

[antikristuseke]

Yes, but they do not pay fees on every person listening to it as they seem ot insist upon from youtube.

[Skybird]

The quality of songs at youtube varies widely. Sometimes the quality is very good, sometimes videos they have are HD resolution up to 1680 resolution.

Before today, Youtube acted as the innocent victim not knowing that it was hosting pirated music and videos, and it did not care.

Before today, GEMA acted as if it were the commander-in-chief of every artist out there and demanded fees that simply are most likely too expensive for Youtube to pay htem by advertisment incomes in Germany.

No side got all it wanted today.

What possibly will come after today is that the risen pressure leads to a higher chance for Youtube accepting a higher payment, and GEMA accepting a lower payment and a greater share of that payment being payed in form of a flatrate.

What is very unlikely is that Youtube will shut down in Germany.

[Catfish]

You also forget that EVERY musician is being charged, if he is a member of the GEMA, or not - they charge any musician automatically assuming he's a member of the GEMA - which why lots of musicians are against it.

[Skybird]

...???

[Catfish]

Maybe this came out wrong - imagine a musician from Indonesia, who has never heard of the GEMA, let alone being paid royalties by them.
This artist will not be shown on YouTube, in Germany, even if this artist insisted.

What's more, IF this artist is being shown at YouTube in Germany because of users paying for seeing him there, he will never get the money from the GEMA.
This company assumes that every artist worldwide is automatically a member of the GEMA, if he signed a contract or not. And if the GEMA collected fees and he does not show up to get the cash collected for him - his problem. Isn't this a nice business idea ?

[HunterICX]

I wouldn't be happy at all when these coorperations gain more ground...it'll restrict freedom and force more things down our throats that we must pay for/submit to to get what we would like.

HunterICX

[Skybird]

Maybe this came out wrong - imagine a musician from Indonesia, who has never heard of the GEMA, let alone being paid royalties by them.
This artist will not be shown on YouTube, in Germany, even if this artist insisted.

What's more, IF this artist is being shown at YouTube in Germany because of users paying for seeing him there, he will never get the money from the GEMA.
This company assumes that every artist worldwide is automatically a member of the GEMA, if he signed a contract or not. And if the GEMA collected fees and he does not show up to get the cash collected for him - his problem. Isn't this a nice business idea ?
Collecting organisations like GEMA exist in almost all developed countries, and there are international cooperations between these national organisation.

The guy from Indonesia who is not member of GEMA (which stands only for 64.000 copyright holders who are active in music) is free to put his file up on Youtube, from indoneisa, if regulations in Indonesia allow that.

Gema wants a basic fee that is fixed form Youtube, and it wants a fee for ever song stremaed that is by an asrtist whose copyright gets reporesneted by GEMA. GEMA does not wants a fee-per-stream from content it does not represents on behalf of the copyright holder.

It ocasionally happened that they did this, though, that isd right. But it is by far not the rule, and whether it is intentional or just mishappenings, is hard to judge.

It'S also not about the artists only, but also the producing and publishing companies.

[Skybird]

I wouldn't be happy at all when these coorperations gain more ground...it'll restrict freedom and force more things down our throats that we must pay for/submit to to get what we would like.

HunterICX
Youtube already has flatrate agreements in over 40 coutnries, they said yesterday. so they already pay for hosting protected ocntent. But GEMA wanted mroe money form them than in the business model of Yiutube can be afforded, they say. The user does not pay money for the streams. The fianncing takes place via advertising exclusively. Only when you are logging a Google account so that you have access to com ment functions and posting options yourself, you give away the other currency by which you pay Google: your personal data and the spying on your internet behavior that allows the establishing of a consumer and character profile that then gets sold by Google, mostly to advertising companies.