Slashdot Mirror

Nope, the deal is exclusive, so one you've sold your soul to GEMA, your "Urheberrecht" is gone. Here's the contract: https://www.gema.de/fileadmin/...

Do you have a source for this? To my knowledge, the GEMA demands 0.375 Euro cents [PDF] per view.

The prices for blank CDs and DVDs are here (in German, go to Page 3). They vary from 6.2 cents for CDs, to €3.473 for a Blu-Ray DVD.

A PC with a burner comes in at €13.65, not sure if they differentiate between CDs and DVDs.

With respect to printers, that is still being fought out in the courts.

According to https://www.gema.de/presse/aktuelle-pressemitteilungen/presse-details/article/singen-erwuenscht-illegales-kopieren-verboten.html they are not targeting the education system as a whole.

Kindergartens in Germany aren't part of the education system as such, and are funded by churches, communities, NGOs, and other entities. They do not fall under the umbrella of the education system in relation to the government.

Schools aren't targeted for these reproduction fees because a "general contract" has been made between the Ministry of Culture (which is at the upper end of the education system) and the copyright holder, so everything is blanket covered.
Since Kindergartens are not under the Ministry of Culture they are not covered by the blanket contract, and have to pay 56 Euros for every 500 copies, or 44.80 Euros after the rebate if they are carried by a church or community.

Of course that's a GEMA press release, so it's going to paint things in their favor.

On a sidenote, typing Kindergartens feels stupid. Kindergaerten doesn't seem right in English, though. What's the proper plural here?

Got a link for that? Sorry to ask for citation, but this: https://www.gema.de/presse/aktuelle-pressemitteilungen/presse-details/article/singen-erwuenscht-illegales-kopieren-verboten.html press release by GEMA (in the original German) explicitly says that in this case they have been tasked by the VG Musikedition (an entity completely separate from GEMA) with enforcing the licensing of reproduction of song lyrics and sheet music. VG Musikedition has absolutely nothing to do with performance, which contradicts your statement that singing out loud in class is performing, and that performing is covered by the same rules. Since VG Musikedition doesn't deal with performances at all, performing cannot possibly be covered by the same rules, and it would be impossible to ask for a fee for performance tomorrow under the same statutes.

I'd appreciate any corrections.

I don't know much about the structure of the IRAA, but its local puppet Gema collects royalties for playing a song in public in Germany (at least if there's a business behind it). They even collect fees from businesses which have a radio running in public areas of their venues (restaurants, stores, hotels ...). It's a stupid system and I wouldn't mention it if Germany wasn't the 2nd largest music market in the world.

So basically whenever "I'm looking for freedom" runs on some station in Germany there's a big check traveling to the US or wherever David Hasselhoff currently lies on the ground trying to eat a burger :)
Like I said I don't have a clue how the RIAA deals with such issues, but the Gema alone should provide enough incentive to keep the current status.

There's an organisation called "GEMA" who actively look out for their customers' interests, which includes scouting round for shops, restaurants etc. who commit the heinous crime of playing music from CDs, radios etc. they already own.

Before I explain the difference, I should acknowledge that many Slashdotters have equal disdain for anybody in the music business who tries to assert their rights. For example, we normally state that we're in favor of the artists and that we think artists should have more rights, money, and respect, but when the BMI or ASCAP (US performing rights agencies run by and for artists and wholly unrelated to the RIAA) sue businesses for playing music without a royalty, Slashdotters bring out the hatred equal to that of the RIAA. So, if "RIAA" is shorthand for "anybody in the music industry who tries to interfere with the free (as in beer AND speech) distribution of music", then yeah, GEMA is like the RIAA, but it's still important to understand the difference.

Here's what GEMA is about, in English. Like BMI and ASCAP, they're a society of composers, lyricists and music publishers.

I believe (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) that the actual German equivalent of the RIAA -- that is, the trade group representing record companies -- is the IFPA.

With all the ire at GEMA's actions, I think the message here is clear: as covered above, we all respect the musicians, and we want them to have more money, rights, and respect. But only on our terms. If they take legal actions or otherwise demand more money, rights, or respect -- in other words, if they simply get too uppity -- then they're on equal moral grounds as the RIAA et al.

The publishers, the composers and the lyricists get each their share directly.
From the horses mouth.

Mainly right. But there is a slight difference:
Here in Germany there is also the GEMA http://www.gema.de/, which is a member of BIEM http://www.biem.org/ and other international rights holders for the music composers and authors. They are collecting fees for music usage from all shops and companies, if they play music. Even if they pay GEZ already, because if they play the music in public, it is a presentation for them, which has to be licensed. So in Germany, shops playing music from the radio are playing double fees!
I mean, it is ok, if the authors want to be paid for their work, but what i absolutely dislike is this tax on radio and TV. If that money would go to all TV stations, it would be ok, but no, the private stations (like RTL and the ProSiebenMedia) don't get anything from that money.
I would like to watch television, yes. But as long as there is this tax on it, even if i choose not to use any of the programs offered by the public broadcasting agencies, i will rather not have a radio nor a TV.
And charging for internet access is just hilarious. I mean, just because the public agencies have costly internet sites, for which they have underestimated the costs, everyone should pay now? Not with me!
(Sorry for the flaming :-/ )

See here

Every public performance of music has to be paid. And there are special "GEMA-taxes" on blank tapes etc.

Rainer

If you buy an audio CD-R (8 Euro) you pay royalties to the GEMA (society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights). That's about 16 Euros or about $20 (+labeling) for this PR stunt.

Normal CD-R cost only 0.40 Euro that's about $1 (+labeling) for the 2 CD-R included in this CD.

Well if the French decide that way, maybe that gives us in Germany some hope. But currently it is assumed that Germans have to expect a price increase of about 180 DEM ($90) for a basic fully-equipped PC. Fees are currently expected to be put on PCs, Scanners, Printers, CD Writers and DVD drives. These fees will be shared between the the German Author's Rights Society (GEMA), the "VG Wort" (the Literature counterpart of the musically oriented GEMA), and the "VG Bild-Kunst" (Same thing for artists, filmmakers and photographers). A fee on scanners that surpass a certain speed in terms of pages per minute has been existent for quite a while already. At least the fees in Germany are significantly lower than those in France.

Since the views of the societies listed above and the hardware manufacturers are not exactly consensual, the case is expected to be taken to court.

I don't know about the US, but here in Germany, you'll have to pay royalties at Gema for that.

It isn't a lot of money, but still, it's money for something that a company does not really need to do, so most companies here don't play "real" albums on the phone while you are waiting.

This is the main reason why (here in Germany) most "on hold" music is royalty-free. There are special music royalty-free collections for this purpose. Usually, these are short melodies and most of them suck.

A friend of mine has composed a few more interesting royalty-free tracks for this purpose. These are often instrumental tunes or even songs made for one particular company, sometimes featuring the company's name. Still, they will also go on your nerves after a short time... :-)

------------------

People here are discussing this as if this was a new law and some outragious thing.

It isn't. Here in Germany, every recordable media and recording equipment is affected by this pseudo-tax, since decades. The money is collected by royalty agencies such as GEMA.

This, btw, includes audio equipment such as audio tape, mini discs as well as paper copiers, e.g. copying machines, telefax machines, scanners etc. For paper copiers, the often used example is the copier in the local library. Everyone is allowed to make a copy for private use and since every copy is indirectly pseudo-taxed, the authors of printed books get their share.

The money is then distributed to companies and the authors of copyable works (books, music, film, tv and radio broadcasts).

I see this system from two perspectives.

On the one hand, yes, it is a strange, bureaucratic conglomerate of royalty collecting agencies taking money from consumers.

On the other hand, I am a semi-professional singer who has done some small studio jobs with my band. We have written a song that aired in a children's show on National German TV and - boom - we got an extra check from the GEMA royalty agency (that very same agency that is responsible for the HP story above). Our album was played on some small radio stations and again, the GEMA got notified and we got a little extra income.

There is another royalty agency collecting money from those using my band's vocal work (e.g. for jingles or dubbing work), so if we did the vocals for an advertisement song and that advertisement would be broadcast a gazillion times, we'd benefit from that (we're not that professional, though).

And a friend of mine, a freelance radio journalist, gets extra money through an agency that is exclusively collects money for spoken radio broadcasts, so that whenever a radio stations airs some of his work as a repeat, het gets a little share from that.

So yes, the system works. It is a strange and scary system, but the authors, composers, singers, speakers and actors who create the content for recordable media benefit from it.

With analog media, all this kind of (*) made of sense. But with digital media, things start to become strange. In fact, there are now two different versions of CD-Rs on the market, one for computer data (no GEMA-pseudo-tax) at around 2 DM/disc and one for audio data (GEMA included) for around 5-6 DM/disc. Techically, these discs are identical. This shows that the system does not work as intended anymore.

------------------

OK, I'll try to get this straight but I'm not a musician ans thus not overtly envolved with the GEMA, but I'll try. GEMA is an abbreviation for Gesellschaft fuer Musikalische Ausfuehrungs- und Mechanische Vervielfaeltigungsrechte. Or (badly) translated: Society for musical performance and mechanical reproduction rights (of the music ;).
The Basic Idea behind this is to have a way to compensate an artist (Musician in case of GEMA) for his work, even when it is copied. This is done by collecting money from everyone who reproduces copies of music or on supplies needed to copy it. Tapes, CD-Rs (special ones with a GEMA Signature wich are extremly overpriced BTW). This of course includes broadcasting of music or public performance of songs written by someone else. You need to register with GEMA, pay and off you go. This money is used to do such useful things like pensions for artists.
The nice thing about the whole thing is, that currently with paying the GEMA-Fees on Tapes ETC you have a _right_ to copy things that are protected for private use. At last for analog devices this is pretty certain, e.g. it is illegal (or at last it was, EU might have changed that) to put Macrovision signals on a Tape. Unfortunatly it is not that easy with digital media. But the fact that I pay GEMA on the recorder AND (well theoretically) for the CD-Rs would make copying CDs for personal use (very important!) legal.
BTW: It doesn't matter wether you actually *use* your recorder/tape/whatever to store information that is protected by GEMA or not. You pay for the ability to do so. Of course if HP sold CD-Recorders that are not capable of burning audio CDs (or at last made sure they would only burn audio on GEMA-CDRs) matters would probably be different.
Ciao, Peter (who hopes this was not too far off.)
PS: Artist == GEMA member, what did _you_ expect? ;)

The GEMA is a NON profit Organization. Every Author, Componist or other copyright holder can become a member an can register their works with them. Everyone who wants to use works registered with GEMA in non private use (Playing at public places. Broadcasting via Radio, TV. Using in Films) has to contact GEMA and has to pay a fee. The fee's are redistributed by GEMA to the copyright holders.

GEMA fee's are often the only payment the copyright holder (The Bands!) recive after the initial payment they received from the label which brought their record to market.

The GEMA gets a small fee for every recording equipment und recording media. This fee allows everyone who owns a record to make copys of this records for personal use. You can even give this recordings to friends without getting into legal trouble. The fee on media is small, a few Pfennig ( 1 Pfennig = 1/2 cent) per media.

So GEMA is not a tool og the recording industry to make their profits on the back of the authors. It's a tool to get the authors the licensing fees the users have to pay for using their music.

if you want to read more about GEMA try their website. As for the potential misuse of the content blocking system, i must completely agree with you.