Music Rights Holders Sue YouTube Again

bennyboy64 writes "NewTeeVee reports on a criminal investigation that has been launched against senior executives of YouTube and parent company Google in Hamburg, Germany over allegations of copyright infringement. The case started after a complaint was filed by German music rights holders. Hamburg's prosecutor has formally requested assistance from US colleagues to compel YouTube to produce log files identifying who uploaded as well as who viewed 500 specific videos."

Comments

Performance != Observance

[LtGordon]

Can somebody please explain to me why it is apparently illegal to simply receive or observe a performance that violates a copyright? I was of the impression that only the distributing party would be liable.

Re:Performance != Observance

[sopssa]

Previously only downloading computer software (including games of course too) was illegal. I think that changed in many EU countries some years ago, and now also downloading music and movies and other copyrighted content is illegal. That would obviously include listening aka downloading from YouTube too.

Re:Performance != Observance

[Ant P.]

Those with money make the rules.

It's a fucked up state of affairs, and the general public is hopefully hard at work trying to put the MAFIAA out of the rule-making business, but it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Re:Performance != Observance

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I think this is great. The country I live in (Sweden) has made downloading illegal, as well as uploading. Everyone assumes that copyright infringment is something that only takes place on piratebay. Here is an example that shows how unintelligent it is to criminalize the person downloading something since more or less everyone assumes that if it's on youtube, it must be legal.

Imagine the law Nicolas Sarkozys is trying to pass in EU (three accusations of copyright infringment and you're banned from the internet) in conjuncture with ordinary peoples use of Youtube.

But what counts as piracy? If I download the entire Monty Python movie "Life of Brian", I'm definately breaking a law. But what if I want to have a laugh at the Lumberjack song and view it? A copyright holder could definately claim that the uploading of the Lumberjack song is infringement, and thus also the downloading. You can claim it's fair use, but there's no real difference between that and uploading a Britney Spears song to piratebay, right?

We need examples like this to stop morons like Sarkozy. Or otherwise, we need to start mailing Sarkozy youtube clips until we can prove he too is a "goddamned pirate".

-- Lars

Re:Performance != Observance

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try at appearing multilingual, however, I would suggest using a different internet translator next time as your statement makes no sense.

If you wanted to say "We are germans, what can you really expect?", that would be "Wir sind Deutsche, was erwarten Sie?"

P.S. great captcha: condom... he he - the robotic overlord says it in a rather excited way

Re:Performance != Observance

[haruchai]

He was probably using Google Translate

Re:Performance != Observance

[Heppelld0]

the copyright owners are trying to support a failing system. the laws and rights that applied years ago aren't relevant any more but they're still stupidly being enforced.

i think the world needs to view the internet as a separate country from the rest of the world. there has to be a set of regulations governing the use of the internet. for that to happen, a group has to be set up to agree what is universally and globally seen as criminal behaviour and then apply it to the internet. it can't be "this country allows this, so as long as the person was in this country, its okay", because that country's resources are accessible from everywhere in the physical world. i believe there's such thing as freedom of speech, and everyone should have a say, but there's just some things that the world would be better without.

its merely a thought exercise, but where better to air a thought than /.

Re:Performance != Observance

[maxwell demon]

Yoda, is that you?

Re:Performance != Observance

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Because Copyright is Sacred.

Copyright now essentially resembles a religious institution. Modern proscriptions on the copying and redistribution of data in the digital age resemble, if anything, proscriptions on the distribution of translations of the Bible in the 1500's at the advent of the printing press. In both cases the technology exists that enables people to transmit information freely and cheaply. In both cases, this new ability threatens the monopoly of an established order. In both cases, that order goes to extreme and unreasonable lengths to defend a status quo that has become farcical.

So, like the bishops of old, the copyright industry is forced to extreme measures. Attack anyone, at any time, anywhere who seeks to defend or aid or in any way comfort those who break their canon, and do so with the utmost ferocity possible. Our modern legal system enables them to be as vindictive as they like with all the power of the courts behind the. Youtube is and always will be a prime target of their ire, being as it is, the bazaar of modern user content generation and distribution. If they can, they will send the state to smash and tear down the stalls seen here, and send all the meddlers packing. But, they are forgetting the forces that created the bazaar in the first place.

As the supply becomes infinite, what happens to the price? As people have the ability to copy and now distribute data, text, music and movies at virtually zero cost, why is this data worth anything anymore? Trying to argue about creators rights or fairness or legalities is to sidestep the main issue; the data is fundamentally worth zero. Attempt as you like to construct sophistic or legal or moral arguments around this. But you have sidesteped this main issue, and its fundamental and central issue is aptly demonstrated by the stampede of ordinary people from all walks of life crashing through it and filesharing as they see fit. The public has made its decision.

You can protest. You can condemn. You can litigate. But ultimately your position is like that of church leaders who protested against the popular printed Bible. People aren't listening. No argument or law or sermon is going to dissuade them from breaking laws they think are silly or unjust. The concept of copyright is too abstract a thing for most people to see breaking it as criminal. The cost of digital distribution too low for most to see its content as being worth anything. The internet has fundamentally changed the nature of content and copyright in a way just as profound as the printing press and the general public has very quickly woken up to this fact. It's time for our legal system to do the same.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

There's no law against receiving or observing copyrighted material. In that case, the liable party would indeed be the distributing party. If you seek it out, or copy it yourself, then you may be liable yourself.

Re:Performance != Observance

[sopssa]

Downloading copyrighted material (without having the right to do so) is illegal atleast in Sweden and Finland since some years ago, and since Germany is in EU too and they're trying to get info on the downloaders aswell I suspect it's the same thing there.

Re:Performance != Observance

[Jarik C-Bol]

The problem with this is, say you watch a video on youtube that someone has put music on. Now, you don't know the song or artist, and you watch your video of some cats doing funny stuff, and go on your way.
Now with what they are trying to do, you might get your happy, cat-loving self sued, because the guy that put the video up was using copyrighted music, and you watched it. Now, i know there is the whole "not knowing the law is no excuse for violating it" thing, but there has to be a practical limit.

At this point, we know that youtube mutes videos with copyrighted music, or replaces it with music that is public domain, or removes the video entirely at times, just to protect grouchy rights holders. Armed with this knowledge, you expect to be able to watch videos on youtube, without the risk of getting in trouble for 'receiving stolen goods' and/or 'pirating music' (Because it got loaded into your ram in a temporary cache?) Who set this stupid precedent anyways?).

Hopefully, this case will set some decent standards so that don't treat the public like guilty before proven innocent criminals.

Re:Performance != Observance

[lastchance_000]

If I were a lawmaker, I don't think it would seem so stupid. I support the laws the media organizations want me to support, and they keep sending me money. Where's the problem?

Re:Performance != Observance

[DarkOx]

That may be true but if the majority of the rules don't at least maintain a somewhat convincing pretense of being for the good of everyone than everyone starts to loose respect for all the rules not just the stupid and or unjust ones. You end up with the collapse of society into a state of practical lawlessness.

Then if your lucky you get a fairly popular revolution that leads to a fairly stable new society for a period of time. If you are less lucky you get an endless parade of strongmen slugging it out for power. These folks in turn produce equally abhorrent laws that the majority appear to respect out of fear but passive aggressively work to undermine the system until its weak enough that the next strongman takes his turn.

You can see the pattern across just about every culture and time period in history.

Re:Performance != Observance

[sopssa]

The good thing however is that courts are usually quite sensible (well here atleast, probably not in USA) and look in to the purposes too. They would most likely laugh off a company that sues a person for randomly watching a video from YouTube that contained copyrighted music track. You'd have more ground when you bring in a case where the person had downloaded 100,000+ music tracks from P2P networks, knowing well that they were copyrighted.

That being said, even the antipiracy companies here have never went after people for downloading, even if its in law illegal. They've just went for the uploaders (where they obviously also have a better case against them)

Re:Performance != Observance

[emilper]

No, actually he is correct, those inversions are used when you want to emphasize ...

Re:Performance != Observance

[icebraining]

Well, when I'm forced to go to court, I'll b sure to bring a small boombox so the judge can be liable for copyright infringement too.

Re:Performance != Observance

[molnarcs]

Parent's comment must be one of the most insightful ones I saw regarding copyrights. When we look at the scope and significance of change a particular technology can bring about, the significance of Gutenberg's invention's the only one that matches that of the Internet... I know, I know... the Internet has many "dependencies" (electricity, cables, whatnot), but I'm referring to the impact on culture.

It can be argued that printing made culture possible. Before the invention of printing, the production of cultural artifacts was mostly embedded in rituals: they served 'magical' and religious (sometimes even legal) purposes, and what we now call art or culture were inseparable aspects of other social practices.

I believe the Internet has the potential to affect a change similar in scope. However, it is yet to be seen if it can reach its potential. They are key areas that are under constant attack (net neutrality, freedom of speech, etc.) - parent sounds optimistic when assumes that these will be fruitless. I hope he's right.

Re:Performance != Observance

[Anonymous Coward]

"The copyright system was designed with concepts like the internet in mind."??? No it wasn't bud. It was designed to give the cronies of the crown rights to make money from someone else's work. Then the idea came along that it would be better for the ARTIST to get the rights and not be under the whips of the DISTRIBUTORS so copyright was given to the ARTIST.

Well 180 years later and we have the distributors again owning the rights and stomping all over both sides.

Given you got that so horrendously wrong, what's the likelihood anything else you wrote is worth reading?

Re:Performance != Observance

[icebraining]

This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99.

$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6558540/walmart_wants_10_cds

When the label _profits_ are greater than the artist royalties, and when online retailers want to charge me almost the same as if they were selling me a CD, the moral urge to buy music is weak.

Re:Performance != Observance

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Now, one of the many things that anti-copyright arguments sidestep is that "everybody is doing it" does not equate with "you can't stop it", and especially "it is good".

This is indeed true. But, as in the case of copyright infringement, when so many people across political, social, cultural, economic and national boundaries have all simultaneously reached the same conclusion with regard to filesharing, this tells us at least that our current copyright laws are in need of modernisation and reform.

At this point, the idea of authors or owners having absolute rights over copying and distribution has become unworkable. My point is not that copyright itself is invalid, but rather that it is in need of reform. Reform that recognises that in the digital age, it is unreasonable to forbid ordinary people to copy works. Copyright can probably find a place in the commercial sphere, where there are few enough companies to make enforcement feasible. But trying to enforce copyright amidst the general population is unworkable and damaging.

Going back to the analogies of the bishops and the bible, the bishops lost their argument, but the bible remained. True, it ceased to be an esoteric scriptural text for a learned few, and became a mass popular work read in the vernacular by millions. But it did continue on, even if the meaning and context had changed. Copyright needs to go through a similar transformation.

Re:Performance != Observance

[AliasMarlowe]

But what if I want to have a laugh at the Lumberjack song and view it? A copyright holder could definately claim that the uploading of the Lumberjack song is infringement, and thus also the downloading.

Your point is generally correct, but Monty Python is not a good example. That comedy group actually has its own YouTube channel, where they have uploaded clips http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython. The channel includes at least one performance of the Lumberjack song http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython#p/c/CDFEA6D52E5CC0EC, so they probably would not mind if you watch it...

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

That's your prerogative; you may choose whichever artist you like based on their label. That still doesn't justify piracy. In that case, the artist's royalties would be less $1.60 per album.

As a side note, part of being with a label is that you have the highest chance of getting good sales, and the label takes half (or more) as insurance. If the artist didn't like it, they shouldn't have signed with them.

Re:Performance != Observance

[tkrotchko]

"if we can make copyright infringement criminal"

We'll make criminals of pretty much everyone.

"we can simultaneously improve enforcement, and get some government oversight into the process"

Great, my tax dollars go making sure the MPAA and RIAA members meet their quarterly revenue goals. When I first read the cautionary essay "The Right to Read" back in 1997, I thought it was silly, but I think folks like yourself read it and agree with it.

Society shouldn't revolve around copyright, copyright should revolve around society. You've got things very backwards.

"That would solve the addicted and ignorant pirate problem."

You can't "educate" people to accept a bad bargain, and right now copyright in particular is a bad bargain for this country.

I think the problem is one of fairness; you view the copyright holder's right as absolute, and they're not. I think big media companies feel they're entitled to a government monopoly on distribution forever. I don't think they are, and I'm guessing if we held a vote on it (i.e. Democracy, my views would be closer to the mainstream than yours.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But, as in the case of copyright infringement, when so many people across political, social, cultural, economic and national boundaries have all simultaneously reached the same conclusion with regard to filesharing, this tells us at least that our current copyright laws are in need of modernisation and reform.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. I think laws should be based on what people want, not what they say they want. If the only evidence that they can come up with against copyright are scapegoat arguments against publishers, that they feel good breaking it, or emotional appeals about the universal nature of art, then they shouldn't be in charge of lawmaking.

That's not to say that their input isn't important, but the current state of play is that a majority of people don't truly grasp copyright. Reform should be taken delicately, with trials in the free market.

There's no law against artists permitting file sharing of their works. Willing artists have had these tools at their fingertips, yet there hasn't been a great number of successful artists who have DIY distributed, which tells us either that it doesn't work, that few artists are willing to work like that, or that there's something about the end product which doesn't satisfy consumers. If we rush headlong into reform that forces artists to abide by such a model, then we run the very large risk of scaring off most of the commercial artists, and we would suffer.

But people don't realise this. In fact, if they just stuck to downloading free artworks, then that would advance reform by leaps and bounds, and would truly hurt those big bad media companies.

Re:Performance != Observance

[icebraining]

In that case, the artist's royalties would be less $1.60 per album.

This isn't a particular case, it's "the cost of a typical major-label release".

So I should just listen to different artists because those I like receive peanuts for each album? That's stupid. I like *those* artists, not some artists per label. If I can't buy that specific albums, I'm not buying "cheaper" ones, albums are not like blenders.

Giving most of my money to the labels and retailers isn't helping the artists (and hence helping produce new music), which was the problem with pirating in the first place (killing music).

If we need to give most of my cash to labels profit to keep music alive, I say let it die.

Re:Performance != Observance

[jonbryce]

Because on computers, everything is a copy.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

"if we can make copyright infringement criminal"

We'll make criminals of pretty much everyone.

Pirates are so quick to accuse their fellow man. For some reason, it seems to ease their consciences.

The idea is that they already willingly made themselves liable for massive damages. We're just scaling that back to the lesser status of criminal. And, of course, they have option of, y'know, just not doing it anymore.

Great, my tax dollars go making sure the MPAA and RIAA members meet their quarterly revenue goals.

Right now, it's their right to make sure they're not being financially raped by a fair portion of the population, but they happen to be fairly loose about it, and do all sorts of back room deals to cover up their shady tactics. Oversight is sorely needed, and yes, protecting people's rights is worth money.

When I first read the cautionary essay "The Right to Read" back in 1997, I thought it was silly, but I think folks like yourself read it and agree with it.

When I read it, I shook my head in disbelief. I couldn't believe that anyone was taken in by such a fallacious strawman argument.

Society shouldn't revolve around copyright, copyright should revolve around society. You've got things very backwards.

I'll realise this when you realise that music pirates should revolve around artists, not the other way around. Artists aren't just slaves creating works for your amusement.

You can't "educate" people to accept a bad bargain

Watch me:

Piracy only hurts the labels, and they kill puppies, and have absolutely no negative long-term effects on us or good artists.

See? It's not that hard.

I think the problem is one of fairness; you view the copyright holder's right as absolute, and they're not. I think big media companies feel they're entitled to a government monopoly on distribution forever. I don't think they are, and I'm guessing if we held a vote on it (i.e. Democracy, my views would be closer to the mainstream than yours.

OK, enough cheap snarks.

I don't actually view copyright as a matter of fairness, but I find that it's in terms of fairness that most people can identify with copyright. The reasons why I support copyright are purely practical; that is copyright is the only system we have so far experienced that will achieve what the general public expect from their culture.

That's why this isn't a political problem, and it can't be solved through democracy. The fact that many people agree doesn't make them right, and doesn't make their solutions work.

Oh, and I don't think copyright needs to be absolute, but I do think it should exist. That is, it should be able to prevent people from copying a work for people without copies.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

So I should just listen to different artists because those I like receive peanuts for each album? That's stupid. I like *those* artists, not some artists per label. If I can't buy that specific albums, I'm not buying "cheaper" ones, albums are not like blenders.

Well, unfortunately, there's no country on Earth who recognises the right to acquire the albums of a specific artist on your terms. The labels have something that you want, and it's up to you to decide whether you want it on their terms or not at all.

Show some free will and find some different artists to listen to. Hopefully some that will satisfy your needs. Otherwise, just pay them already! Without them, you wouldn't have access to the albums in the first place!

Giving most of my money to the labels and retailers isn't helping the artists (and hence helping produce new music), which was the problem with pirating in the first place (killing music).

It's not helping those artists because they made the stupid decision to go with a label. If you concentrated on other music, then you would be reinforcing other business models, and promoting culture, rather than leeching off it. That's the difference between piracy and healthy competition.

If we need to give most of my cash to labels profit to keep music alive

That's the thing; we don't. And even if we do, then there's absolutely no reason why you need to spoil it for the rest of us. You can just not buy or download any of their offering, and the rest of us can enjoy it ourselves.

Re:Performance != Observance

[gilgongo]

Well, when I'm forced to go to court, I'll b sure to bring a small boombox so the judge can be liable for copyright infringement too.

That's a good point. Of course I've not RTFA, but how is YouTube different from traditional radio in this respect? After all, if I am painting my house while listening to my radio, and the radio plays Britney Spears, and my neighbour hears that track, Sony don't sue the radio station, much less us. What gives? Is there some subtlety in the fact that the songs are part of videos that is the issue here?

Re:Performance != Observance

[tkrotchko]

"I don't actually view copyright as a matter of fairness"

But unless the bargain is fair it will never stick. I don't think you can get around that.

No offense, your position on copyrights seems to be a bit like King Canute; you think that all that need to be done is educate and prosecute and that nothing else needs to be changed and that the law will be observed. But the king cannot command the sea.

Copyright laws and enforcement have gotten progressively more stringent and yet copyright violations continue to expand (by the current legal definition). At a certain point, you've got to acknowledge that it's not working and take a different approach to copyright and change the current bargain the people have made with people who want copyright protection.

Re:Performance != Observance

[makomk]

Also, as I understand it, production costs are paid for out of the artist's royalties, not the record company's share.

Re:Performance != Observance

[Daengbo]

Calm down. I'm prety sure he's talking about the long history of copyright law:

• Crown-authorized copyright given to printers, c. 1500-1700
• Modern copyright law, giving the rights to the authors, not the publishers, c. 1700- 1975
• Work for hire was later codified and artists' contracts typically had a WFH clause, 1976 - pres.

I'm surprised you didn't immediately identify what he was talking about, since you seem to have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject of copyrights and have strong thoughts on it.

Re:Performance != Observance

[roguetrick]

I'm sure if he pirates their offering, we can still enjoy it and pay for it ourselves as well.

Re:Performance != Observance

[gilgongo]

I think it's more likely that copyright will become irrelevant and that contracts (eg Sony BMG have a contract with YouTube that says XYZ) will become the norm. Contract wins over copyright already, and seeing as copyright is plainly stupid in the digital age (it was meant to protect the owners of printing presses for god's sake), it's just going to have to go away.

That don't mean our lives get any easier though.

Re:Performance != Observance

[Runaway1956]

I think a lot of confusion comes when the Euros try to figure out our law, and we try to figure out their law. Worse, we often forget that there IS a difference.

There was a story about a shop owner in the UK who was forced to remove a radio from her shop, because she wasn't paying the mafiaa any royalties. So - she goes about her business without music, singing to herself. They came back, wanting to charge royalties!! Under UK law, they had a case, but only backed down after the public expressed it's outrage.

Here in the states, royalties end when you purchase the CD, or when the radio station pays. It is commonly accepted that unless you are playing the music for commercial purposes, you owe nothing.

I don't know anything about German law at all - but when we forget that there ARE differences between Euro law and US law, these stories make no sense at all. We can't make sense of court rulings in Germany or anywhere else if we attempt to base our understanding on US law.

Re:Performance != Observance

[fritsd]

AFAIK, the current European copyright duration is "70 years post mortem auctoris". It's preposterous.
For example: J.K. Rowling is a European woman in the 21st century so let's suppose (and hope) she lives to put 90 candles on her birthday cake. That means that with current legislation, barring further ex-post-facto law changes, that Harry Potter is her publisher's monopoly right until anno domini 2125, or 116 years from now.
Publishing companies don't have eternal life either, so what are the odds that Bloomsbury Publishing (est. 1986) will still exist 116 years from now? And if it doesn't, *NOBODY* has the legal right to publish the adventures of the lightning-scarred pubescent until 2125. Not even Google :-)
I think that copyright should be the maximum of (the author's life , x years after production) where the mathematical optimum for x was something like 14 years? but even if it's 40 years that seems more reasonable.
X should be > 0 to prevent the following scenario: record company A "owns" wildly famous rock star B. competing record company C gets B killed, and can start production of B's records immediately as well as A, since B's dead and his music is now public domain.
However I consider the chance slim that someone kills Harry Mulisch to get "Wenken voor de Jongste Dag" (1967) into the public domain a few years sooner (sorry mr. Mulisch).

Re:Performance != Observance

[shentino]

The MAFIAA needs to be boycotted.

But heaven help us if their litigation machine ever proves profitable even without sales to back them up. Then there will be no stopping them.

Re:Performance != Observance

[Idiomatick]

Relying on the government to be sensible is a horrifying proposition.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

No, I knew what he was referring to. I just wanted to point out that, firstly, copyright has been different many, many years, and secondly, that his point had absolutely no bearing on my own.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Well, that's exactly what's happening. Everyone who pays for works end up paying for the people who don't. The problem is that some people aren't happy paying such high prices for the sake of pirates.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But unless the bargain is fair it will never stick. I don't think you can get around that.

Fairness is relative. Some people believe that enjoying the fruits of someone's labour, against their will, without paying them for the trouble, is unfair. Others seem to believe that preventing people from doing the above is unfair.

You see, the public's perception of fairness can change. What can't, is the outcome of destroying copyright.

No offense, your position on copyrights seems to be a bit like King Canute; you think that all that need to be done is educate and prosecute and that nothing else needs to be changed and that the law will be observed. But the king cannot command the sea.

You may well be right. But if there's a tiny chance of successfully commanding the sea, I'd rather try, rather than let the sea flood everything I hold dear.

At a certain point, you've got to acknowledge that it's not working and take a different approach to copyright and change the current bargain the people have made with people who want copyright protection.

Wait, and just think about it for a moment. What we have here is a classic free market setup. We have the producers and the consumers. The producers have all the freedom they like to provide whatever product they like, and consumers have the choice of what to buy.

Artists have their choice in how they deliver their works. Does this grant them unlimited freedom? No. They still have to appease their customers. Somewhere, hopefully, there's a balance between the price and/or rights the consumers demand, and the profits of the artist. This is how the free market determines what's fair and what isn't, balancing the needs of both parties.

Do we want shareable media? Perhaps. We would probably have to endure higher prices. It's possible if people are willing to pay the true cost of sharing. We could easily force artists to make media shareable by refusing to buy any other kinds of media. Artists would be forced to sink or swim with the new tide in entertainment. There's no need to change legislature; it can become common practice by force of will. And best of all, if we discover that it's not what we want, we can seamlessly transition back to the old system.

If we start changing the laws, then we haven't enabled anything new. We are simply locking the system into fewer, possibly inferior, options. We may be dooming ourselves to pay higher prices for considerably less range and variety, and the only way to go back to the old system is through the slow and clunky process of changing the laws.

Is that really what we want? The fantasy is that our culture is naturally this vibrant, but in truth, it took years of commercialising to get this far. Copyright brought more people into the game, encouraged them to keep creating, and even better, to distribute their creations as wide as possible. Now, any aspiring artist has a huge source of inspiration that diverse and readily available, and now with the internet, some can even distribute their works themselves.

Copyright is the backbone of our culture. Just consider this notion of celebrity. Sure it's pretty vacuous, but it serves an important function. It basically advertises the career of a successful artist. We idolise such artists, and consequently, many children of becoming an artist, so we're not short of incoming wannabes, and from there, we can usually derive plenty of talent. Celebrity didn't exist in any meaningful form before copyright.

What piracy does is make the system, by its very nature, unfair. It delivers all the power to the people. Now, suddenly, people can get whatever they like on their own terms. It seems fairer only because it's so completely unfair in your favour. But, like all completely unfair arrangements between two codependent parties, it's all going to end in tears.

Naturally, going back to the more stable arrangement will ruffle a few feathers. Some people are really profiting from this new arrangement, but for their own good, they need to listen to reason. As do we.

Re:Performance != Observance

[bmatt17]

"Well, that's exactly what's happening. Everyone who pays for works end up paying for the people who don't. The problem is that some people aren't happy paying such high prices for the sake of pirates." Except you're wrong. If anything the prices have gone down because of pirates. You think we'd have Itunes and .99 songs on Amazon if the labels could still get away with only selling CD's for $20? The only reason we now have these cheaper digital purchase option is because of the pirates.

Re:Performance != Observance

[blackest_k]

Well, that's exactly what's happening. Everyone who pays for works end up paying for the people who don't. The problem is that some people aren't happy paying such high prices for the sake of pirates.

That is fundamentally flawed. Things are not priced to recover an investment but to what the market will bare.
The difference between me and j k rowling is that people will pay more often to read what she writes.

I've probably earned more per copy than J K Rowling with some things I have written but there really wasn't an alternative for the companies that needed my product.

Under your thinking J K should have slashed the cost of her books once she made her first million since that was enough but she didn't because its never enough!

Piracy gives an alternative to the official product with interesting results. The pirated version might be of inferior quality however often its a superior product due to lack of drm and other copyright devices. (when Securerom complains that the genuine commercial disk in your drive is a fake and refuses to run the game you paid for, the pirated version is better).

Piracy does not raise the cost of anything for the consumer, but it does reduce the profitability of particular items per unit. Piracy may increase demand and create a market for some items or the complete opposite (where exclusivity sets the price).

Piracy can have positive local effects reducing imports or flow of cash outside the economy. Unless the saved money is hoarded and not spent, some where else comes out ahead. If there is no money to be hoarded only the commercial producer loses some profitability on a product (as the price needs to be set lower to maintain some commercial demand, although legitimate competing products will help set the price too).

Piracy can often increase the exposure and popularity of a product.
A recent article on Slashdot showed an iPhone Game 'suffering' with 80 percent piracy however the Game was in the top 100 of apps bein sold in the iphone store of the thousands of apps available. That game is successful commercially and probably piracy made it popular.
How many developers would take greater piracy if it meant greater commercial success? How many sales are lost by treating the customer poorly with DRM restrictions?

Even in commercial situations with draconian oversight where piracy isn't an option FOSS can replace some commercial software and keep the price down.

Piracy may well be a factor in setting the price but that price is lower not higher.

Re:Performance != Observance

[You ain't seen me!]

Your're right about Sarkozy's insane 3 strikes rule - In the UK the Government have been threatening to do the same.

However, these same UK politicians also use YouTube pages to spread their propaganda and can often be heard to tell us mere mortals that information can be found on YouTube if we are willing to search.

Now if I follow one of our politicians directions and seek out an item and I hit a page which contains copyright content (even if by mistake whilst searching) does that mean the politician will be liable for incitement to breach copyright law?

Re:Performance != Observance

[AG the other]

Listening to Brittney Spears should be worth a couple of years at the county jail.

AG

Re:Performance != Observance

[Meski]

Turn off youtube and google in Germany for a while. Until they plead for it to be turned back on.

Re:Performance != Observance

[Meski]

Listening to Brittney Spears should be worth a couple of years at the county jail.

AG

Um, no, that should be worth time off your sentence under the category "time already served"

Re:Performance != Observance

[tkrotchko]

"What we have here is a classic free market setup."

We have the opposite of a free market today; we have large companies that effectively use congress as a tool to maximize profit.

I respect your position, but I think you're hearkening back to a day that cannot be brought back. Copying is trivial now and always will be trivial. You can put in all sorts of laws to punish people, but you can't stop people from copying a movie or music for their buddies. That bargain that used to exist before all media was digital is gone, never to return.

Do I want to repeal copyright? Goodness no. But the bargain of Copyrights between producer and purchaser needs to change from the current model to one that's more equitable and enforces broader fair use rights for the public, shorter copyright time limits (less than 17 years certainly), compulsory licensing, and perhaps government enforcement only for commercial infringement.

Those changes will almost certainly happen little by little over the next decade.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You think we'd have Itunes and .99 songs on Amazon if the labels could still get away with only selling CD's for $20? The only reason we now have these cheaper digital purchase option is because of the pirates.

Except that you're wrong. You're seeing a correlation and interpreting it as causation. What is it about piracy that causes media companies to start using the internet? Absolutely nothing; the internet was there, the capacity for cheaper distribution was there, and the demand was there without the influence of piracy. What piracy does is make it necessary for companies to charge more to keep acceptable profit margins. So, in effect, we are paying for what the pirates use.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Piracy does not raise the cost of anything for the consumer, but it does reduce the profitability of particular items per unit.

What makes you think that they aren't linked? As profitability decreases, the natural and correct response for a company is to either raise prices, or decrease expenditure. Either way, legitimate customers get less value.

Piracy may increase demand and create a market for some items or the complete opposite (where exclusivity sets the price).

No, actually, piracy unlocks more potential demand. It only has use under the assumption that the work isn't marketed properly. And the side effect of simultaneously fulfilling demand while discovering makes it far, far, far more of a burden than a blessing.

Piracy can have positive local effects reducing imports or flow of cash outside the economy.

That's bullshit. Reducing cash outflow is only positive if it's redirected towards inside the economy. The idea is not to prevent spending; it's to encourage spending locally.

You could see positive effects if you stopped buying international artists and only buying local ones, but on the same token, it assumes that people don't do the same in their neighbourhood. It's not quite mutually assured destruction, but it's mutually assured detriment.

Piracy can often increase the exposure and popularity of a product.

It can, but it's hardly the business of you or any other consumer. It's the prerogative of the copyright holder, who is perfectly capable of deciding how to market their own product (even if it means allowing copying). Couple that with the significant detrimental effects of piracy, and it becomes borderline insulting to suppose you know what's best.

Even in commercial situations with draconian oversight where piracy isn't an option FOSS can replace some commercial software and keep the price down.

That isn't piracy, and actually has positive effects, specifically that it creates an independent competitor to a product. One that can survive without the other existing. Thus, if one goes out of business, it will be through legitimate competition, and the other will be still be there. This promotes quality and lower prices.

Compare this to piracy, which leeches of the work of others, and contributes nothing back. You can try (and fail) to make economic arguments to support piracy, but essentially the same inherent fault runs through its very foundations: piracy rewards the act of not rewarding. Economically, it makes any profits highly unstable, and severely jeopardises whatever market it applies to. In reality, it makes art run on charity. Compare a third world country to a first world country, or a high-class suburb to a slum, and you'll get an idea of what we're heading to.

Piracy may well be a factor in setting the price but that price is lower not higher.

Yeah, but it's always coupled with a decrease in quality. I consider it a higher price, even though it's technically a higher price for a standard product.

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

We have the opposite of a free market today; we have large companies that effectively use congress as a tool to maximize profit.

But... that's exactly what a free market setup is! Companies maximise profits, consumers maximise value. Copyright is a tool that gives us the options required to do so. It allows us to work towards a sweet spot, where we get decent value, and the company gets decent profits.

Piracy forces the system to tend towards a $0 price, and hence the companies into 0 production, which is bad for both us and companies. It would be like if companies could force us to buy their products, and decide their own price (that would be, in all fairness, be the symmetric situation). That would be an equally destructive situation, and is further from a free market setup, even though the laws preventing companies from accessing our bank accounts are really just government intervention.

I respect your position, but I think you're hearkening back to a day that cannot be brought back. Copying is trivial now and always will be trivial. You can put in all sorts of laws to punish people, but you can't stop people from copying a movie or music for their buddies. That bargain that used to exist before all media was digital is gone, never to return.

Well, I'm not convinced. Copying may be trivial, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we can't enforce copyright. Theft is trivial (just pick it up and walk out the door), but we can still enforce it. Granted, the fact that we're dealing with digital data and not physical object inevitably poses unique challenges, but I think we're far from the point of giving up hope.

Do I want to repeal copyright? Goodness no.

Yeah, I kinda picked that up already. ;)

But the bargain of Copyrights between producer and purchaser needs to change from the current model to one that's more equitable and enforces broader fair use rights for the public, shorter copyright time limits (less than 17 years certainly), compulsory licensing, and perhaps government enforcement only for commercial infringement.

That's it? Well, in that case, yeah I agree with you. I've been referring to copyright as a principle (i.e. including term limits and fair use exceptions, without specifying rights or numbers), and I've been arguing not to weaken copyright (i.e. not tamper with the core principle), but I do support shorter terms, clearly defined fair use rights, and government enforcement. I think compulsory licenses is also a good idea, but we should beware of attaching responsibilities to copyrights that are automatically granted to private works.

Essentially, my main point is that making sharing, even (especially) non-commercial sharing is a critical mistake. I think private sharing is an acceptable loss, but public sharing is the main problem facing our culture today.

Re:Performance != Observance

[bmatt17]

At the absolute minimum at least in the music industry, piracy with Napster woke the industry up to the large demand for digital music. And since the digital stores like Itunes and Amazon are competing with free, I believe that has actually lowered the price. Would we still have digital options to purchase music if it weren't for the pirates? Sure but something tells me we sure as hell wouldn't be seeing songs for .50 or full new albums for $5.00. Pricing would be the same as it is now or would more closely resemble traditional CD pricing.
Do you honestly think that if CD's were still not able to be copied and the music industry had complete control over how/when/where and how much it cost to do so that digital music or CD's in general would be any cheaper? There'd probably be HD-Audio CD's that cost $30 like movies.
I'm not trying to say piracy is good and do see that in a way it is stealing. But there are many times that I feel it's completely moral/justified to pirate something. Any music I've bought before whether on CD, tape or 8 track I would have no problems downloading. Actually anything I have payed for I have no problem downloading.
Now I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and have bought in just the last 2 weeks, Uncharted 2, Brutal Legend, & Borderlands. All new release $60 games. On Nov 3'rd I'll be buying another one Dragon Age. I will be buying for the PS3 but I will be downloading it for the PC. I've also bought both of the prequel books at $15 each. Now am I a filthy thief for "stealing" the PC version? I've already payed $90 for the game and story. There are plenty of moral reasons to pirate. I've had to download games that I've purchased but ruined the disc for.
I've also downloaded software that I haven't purchased but never would of. Photoshop is a great program and fun to learn but I sure wouldn't spend $600 on it to play around on some family photos. Why photoshop? Cause I was given the Total Training instruction videos for it and like learning new things. I don't think they would've worked for GIMP all that well. I've downloaded Visual Studio to learn to program because I sure didn't have the $1200 to buy it from Microsoft and that knowledge has helped me progress in my job. Visual Basic mostly for Excel Macros in work but I only know that because I pirated the software I couldn't afford and taught myself. If I was a business making money off of either of them I would have payed. As it is I'm entirely self taught. I don't have a great high paying programmers job, but I have a decent salary and don't have overwhelming student loans to deal with.
So basically I've pirated a lot of software. But I buy a lot as well. I have over 200 CD,s over 200 DVD's. at least a dozen blu-rays. I've pirated Windows but use Ubuntu. So just how is that I'm making you pay more? Cause I have absolutely no guilt when I download something. I pay more than my fair share.

Re:Performance != Observance

[Kashgarinn]

Ok, to me, today, this would be the new price for online:

$0.17 Musicians' unions
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$0.69 Itunes revenue
$0.05 network fees
$0.05 operating expenses
$0.10 credit card fees

  Total: $2.66 - for a whole album.

- you could increase the price to $4 for an album, then you would increase artist royalties to $2.94 which is fair

taken out:
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$3.89 Retail overhead
$0.90 Distribution
$1.70 Label profit
$2.91 Label overhead
$2.40 Label Marketing/promotion

- If you want the promotion of a label, you'd have to add $7.01 to the price, isn't there something wrong with that picture?

Re:Performance != Observance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

At the absolute minimum at least in the music industry, piracy with Napster woke the industry up to the large demand for digital music.

We'll probably never know for sure. It certainly encapsulated the demand for downloadable music. Of course, it simultaneously encapsulated the ever present demand for free music, so it's hard to say how much of a wake up call it really was.

And since the digital stores like Itunes and Amazon are competing with free, I believe that has actually lowered the price.

You can't compete with free. That's the point. What you get is either higher price, or worse quality. Either way, the value is decreased.

Would we still have digital options to purchase music if it weren't for the pirates? Sure but something tells me we sure as hell wouldn't be seeing songs for .50 or full new albums for $5.00. Pricing would be the same as it is now or would more closely resemble traditional CD pricing.

I don't see why. Music is a competitive industry, and internet distribution and advertising lowers prices considerably.

Do you honestly think that if CD's were still not able to be copied and the music industry had complete control over how/when/where and how much it cost to do so that digital music or CD's in general would be any cheaper? There'd probably be HD-Audio CD's that cost $30 like movies.

Yes! The problem is that you are somehow stuck in this false dichotomy between piracy and absolute control of Big Music. Consumers can have leverage without stealing, just like people can protest without firebombing.

I'm not trying to say piracy is good and do see that in a way it is stealing. But there are many times that I feel it's completely moral/justified to pirate something. Any music I've bought before whether on CD, tape or 8 track I would have no problems downloading. Actually anything I have payed for I have no problem downloading.

There's no doubt about it; it's a less damaging form of piracy. I still have some reservations about though. If the product's changed (e.g. remastering, b-sides, etc), then I would either just stick with what I have, or, very occasionally, I'd buy again. But, I certainly see where you're coming from.

Now I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and have bought in just the last 2 weeks, Uncharted 2, Brutal Legend, & Borderlands. All new release $60 games. On Nov 3'rd I'll be buying another one Dragon Age. I will be buying for the PS3 but I will be downloading it for the PC. I've also bought both of the prequel books at $15 each. Now am I a filthy thief for "stealing" the PC version?

Probably not. I still have these reservations though. Not that this necessarily applies to you, but there's this tremendous air of entitlement from pirates. You have to remember that you have absolutely no right to these extra versions that you don't pay for. Downloading and using them is a privilege.

Entitlement doesn't sound like a huge problem on its own, but you see, it can grow. Time and again, I've seen people claiming that they were forced into piracy over the tiniest complaints.

I've also downloaded software that I haven't purchased but never would of.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If copyright holders wanted any of the supposed benefits of such "free" advertising, they would ask for it. If you can't afford a piece of software, don't use it! I don't care how fun it is. If more people did this instead of pirating, then at least it would be clear to the publishers that their software is too expensive, and it's not just a case of it being cheaper for free.

So basically I've pirated a lot of software. But I buy a lot as well. I have over 200 CD,s over 200 DVD's. at least a dozen blu-rays. I've pirated Windows but use Ubuntu.

If we accidentally watched a German video

[Anonymous Coward]

...can we sue the musician?

Well, nothing new here...

[RobertM1968]

Looks like business as usual. Guess they will keep trying until (a) they can no longer afford to or (b) they set a precedent by actually having such a case go through the courts and win.

Nothing beats a failure like failing again!

Because you copy the work into RAM

[tepples]

Can somebody please explain to me why it is apparently illegal to simply receive or observe a performance that violates a copyright? I was of the impression that only the distributing party would be liable.

Because you copy the work into your computer's RAM to view it. There is an exception in countries' copyright laws covering necessary short-term copies, such as 17 USC 117 and foreign counterparts, but a lot of these exceptions cover copies only from those copies that are lawfully made.

Re:Because you copy the work into RAM

[Rich0]

That is a pretty ridiculous argument (spare me the citations, I'm sure there are 14 judges out there that have upheld it nonetheless).

When I listen to music from the radio it ends up being embedded in my memory - and yet I don't need a license to listen to the music.

I don't really have a major problem with copyright, but it is something that should be exclusively applied to people distributing things, not people who receive them. P2P technology is a gray area - I'm actually not opposed to liability there but the statutory fines need to be several orders of magnitude lower.

Re:Because you copy the work into RAM

[Anonymous Coward]

The countries that follow the french copyright tradition also recognize the right for personal use. That means that all citizens have the right to access copyrighted works without the copyright owner's authorization, as long as the access is in the form of personal use only and the unauthorized distribution doesn't have a relevant effect on commercial distribution. You know, because we are supposed to be dealing with culture and not a commercial product and the access to culture cannot be affected by how much money someone has.

Re:Because you copy the work into RAM

[lpq]

Uh...

That doesn't work for me -- I copy a image into my brain cells when I look at it. The image may be modified or compressed in real time, as my visual subprocessors ignore or tune out parts of the visual stimuli around me, but if I don't make a copy I can't see anything. The information goes from the external world, through my eyes and is copied into my internal representation of the world.

Isn't everything we receive as information copied, in some form, into our brain?

How can one respond to what someone else has said if one doesn't hold it in their own memory long enough to decode and comprehend the meaning? Copies are the only way we experience the world around us.

Re:Because you copy the work into RAM

[tepples]

You make the same points that I replied to in my other comment.

Crazy

[Mechanist.tm]

Logs to get who viewed the videos. Is that not crazy?

Re:Crazy

[Yvan256]

And that's why Sarkozy is Never Gonna Give You Up.

Re:Crazy

[SpectralDesign]

That goes without saying except for one caveat... there is a precedent... when Viacom sued Google (YouTube) for... wait for it... "One B i l l i o n Dollars" they requested the "viewing" logs and Google rolled-over for them (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/07/judge-orders-yo/). Granted, they were ordered to, but the Judge used their own prior arguments about the meaningfulness of IP addresses to support his argument.

Re:Crazy

[blindbat]

Well, it could be used to determine the extent of the infringement. I.e. How *many* people actually benefited from the infringer's distribution.

i suppose

[Heppelld0]

the way i see it is that there's two types of artist. those that produce works for money, and those that don't and get money anyway. the former tend to be the one's doin' the sue-in'. that doesn't mean to say that they don't produce good works of art, it's more the situation "you WILL pay to enjoy my art" as opposed to "if you like it, pay me to produce more". it just doesn't feel right somehow

Free advertisment

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously?
Youtube is free advertising, not piracy.
Many times i've seen a band on youtube and then went and bought music from it. Not just listened to youtube to avoid buying stuff.

Re:Free advertisment

[Jarik C-Bol]

sudo, mod this one up.
i could not agree more. there are lots of things that i've found clips of on youtube that lead me to finding and buying CD's of that work.

They have no business in knowing who viewed them

[maxwell demon]

They have no business in knowing who viewed the videos. After all, since YouTube explicitly disables videos which are infringing, I have to assume that if I see a video on YouTube, I have the right to do so. If a video happens to be uploaded illegally, that's not my fault as viewer, and I cannot be made responsible for the fact that I was shown that video.

Just for the record: I don't have any idea whether I've seen any of those videos. Since those are just 500 videos, and YouTube has so many more, I suspect I haven't. But even if I have, I have done nothing wrong, and therefore they clearly have no moral right (and I really hope also no legal right, although in these times you never can be sure) to demand to find out whether I've seen any of those videos.

I hope I'll not have to start using anonymous proxies to protect myself when just doing normal, legal activities!

Re:What next...?

[maxwell demon]

Yes. And the inhabitants of neighbouring countries who live near the border and therefore are in range of the senders as well. They will even have to pay doubly: Not only did they listen to unlicensed audio, they even listened to it through a radio station which didn't have a license in that country, so they were infringing on the legally broadcast material as well.

Pretty much makes Europe offlimits, doesn't it?

[ibsteve2u]

...as well as who viewed 500 specific videos

The possibility of being dragged into a German court just because you viewed something is a game-changer, I'd say.

You'd have to weigh the potential time and money lost responding to German legal proceedings against just how bad you want to see any website that is within reach of the German legal system - unless you know the contents of all Flash animations and other media for the entire website in advance .

Does Google accept !GermanContent as a query modifier?

Re:Take it to the extremes

[MrMr]

Right, because the inane drivel that needs the current messed up copyright system to be profitable is art?

Re:What next...?

[MrMr]

You have less experience with Germans than some people.

Re:Take it to the extremes

[maxwell demon]

You have no idea of modern art. You still think art has to be something traditional like music, paintings etc. Actually they are producing legal art by using the law in creative ways (and creativity is the base of art, isn't it?) and performance art where the performance is done by lawyers in the courtroom.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[Tanuki64]

Whether or not you can be held responsible for viewing the videos does not matter. For all non-Germans who might not know: This is the court in Hamburg. When it comes to copyright and internet you cannot find a more stupid court with more imbecile or corrupt judges than the one in Hamburg. You have enough money? You can get any ruling you like. Usually it does not hold before a higher court, but this is not necessarily expected by the "plaintiffs". The main task for the court in Hamburg is to be used to threaten and intimidate the monetary weaker party. In this case Google is not the monetary weaker party, but at least there is a chance that the "plaintiff" gets the data who watched the videos. It is very unlikely they will be sued directly. Though before the court in Hamburg this might be successful. It is most likely that the people who watched the videos get some sort of 'cease and desist letter', which costs them several hundred dollar. In Germany this is a legal way blackmailing people to pay in order not to get sued. In this case, if they do not pay probably nothing will happen. The legal base is just too weak. But enough will pay out of fear to get sued so that this scam will pay off nicely.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[DarkOx]

If there is any successful attempt to hold viewers accountable for infringement by watching the videos than it seems to me that entire Internet is useless for anyone withing reach of German law. How can an end user ever begin to ensure that any of the content on any site they might be visiting has been licenses appropriately or is not otherwise infringing?

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[Tanuki64]

Don't tell me, tell the judges in Hamburg. Good luck. :-)

What? They're f#@$ing with YouTube again?

[paiute]

Just wait until Hitler finds out. He's going to snap, man.

Again? But that trick NEVER works!

[Hawthorne01]

This time for sure!

You know something is seriously wrong if...

[drej]

...you have to explicitly say "Music Rights Holders" instead of "Musicians".

Price != Value

[jonaskoelker]

As the supply becomes infinite, what happens to the price? As people have the ability to copy and now distribute data, text, music and movies at virtually zero cost, why is this data worth anything anymore?

I disagree with your terminology here. Not your argument or conclusion (I have yet to take a stand on those), but your terminology.

(maybe that makes me a pedantic, but so be it. If the mods don't like this, oh well; I have karma to burn and I'm willing to have it be burned to say what I want to say.)

Value and price are two differen things. Value is, roughly speaking, how much we like having something and/or how badly we want it. Price is the amount of resources we trade away to get it.

I value much of the software I run. I value listening to JT Bruce's "A skeptic's Hypothesis". I value watching "Big Buck Bunny". But I pay aprice of 0 for all of these. (There's a transaction cost toall of these, sure, but no price).

What will happen to the value as supply rises? Pretty much nothing. The price will likely drop to zero. Also, people might get a closer approximation of their real preferences if there is more competition.

But they'll still like listening to $BAND just as much.

(someone used to call this "value in trade" versus "value in use"; I think it was a greek, but you're armed with the power of Google, so use it if you need.)

Put up the take-down order NAMING THE PARTIES

[crovira]

instead of the video so we can all see exactly who is asking for this.

It would make an acceptable policy for me and let me know that working for objected to this.

It would let us know who's who exactly and would stop the lawyers from scurrying back under their rocks.

Shine a bright light on these copyright infringements, the infringers and the protectors.

Something like:

"This video removed on order on working for pursuant to a decision taken on .
Click here for a link to a PDF of the court decision.
Click here for a list all such requests by
Click here for a list all such requests by ."

Re:Put up the take-down order NAMING THE PARTIES

[earlymon]

OK, here's a bit of detail on the artists complaining, from TFA -

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i27945265e8c954255246318766e97f46

But - you're not getting it.

This isn't a take-down notice. This is way past that.

This is intended criminal prosecution against the execs of YouTube and Google in Germany, as TFS and TFA state.

Big difference.

NAZIS! National Socialists!

[commodore64_love]

Sorry. It was just the first thing that popped into my head when I read this: "Hamburg's prosecutor has formally requested assistance from US colleagues to compel YouTube to produce log files identifying who uploaded as well as who viewed 500 specific videos."

I better build a secret room above my neighbors' house so I can hide. Once the Germans get ahold of my name I'll be doomed.

Rampant Greed

[kurt555gs]

The greed of the music/video industry is only exceeded by those in the oil business.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[Kjella]

I have to assume that if I see a video on YouTube, I have the right to do so. If a video happens to be uploaded illegally, that's not my fault as viewer, and I cannot be made responsible for the fact that I was shown that video.

Not that US law is relevant to Germans, but USC 17504(c)(2):

(...) In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

Or the short version: Yes, you can.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[TavisJohn]

Plus, how are you (the viewer) supposed to know if the video infringes anything until you have WATCHED it? You can not possibly go by the title! Have you seen how some of the vids are titled? They often have little or NOTHING to do with the video content.

And even after you have watched it, how are you really supposed to know the legal status of the video? It is not like you know if the uploaded has written permission or anything!

Re:Take it to the extremes

[jbezorg]

Wait... aren't laws based on precedent and if, as you say "they are producing legal art", are they not violating the copyright of that previous work?

What I'd like to see

[mrsam]

Of course, the following will never happen, but it's a nice dream to have: Google responding to this kind of nonsense by blocking all German IP address ranges, and returning a static page to all requests to youtube.com (or all Google properties) with a static page carrying a simple message: a criminal investigation was started alleging that we are violating German copyright law, so, regretfully, you can no longer access this site; if you want to have the law changed so that you can access this site again, contact your elected officials.

This of course will never happen. The reason it won't happen is because this makes too much sense to do.

Re:What I'd like to see

[/dev/trash]

well, they are violating the law.

Re:What I'd like to see

[cpghost]

The reason it won't happen is because this makes too much sense to do.

No, the reason it won't happen is that Google is basically an advertising business, and they'd be loosing just too many users.

But I kind of like the idea of Google trying to educate the largest European economy what kind of laws it should adopt.

Then we definitely need to know the names.

[crovira]

It probably would never get to that stage if the made the take down notices public though.

Re:Then we definitely need to know the names.

[earlymon]

Yeah - you may be right, you may not - German law and customs are outside what I know. TFA did say that prosecutors routinely rejected such criminal complaints and urged civil action instead.

The article(s) did make German law and culture sound very different on this point. For all I know, public take-down notices would have fueled anger for YouTube there, rather than the other way around.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[Yvan256]

They often have little or NOTHING to do with the video content.

Not to mention that YouTube always takes the middle of the video for the thumbnail. Some uploaders are abusing that to post completely unrelated videos with the middle few seconds being what they want the thumbnail to be.

YouTube should make the thumbnails from random places so that uploaders can't fake them so easily.

Re:Hamburg = Texas

[Jesus_666]

It's not exactly +1, Funny; +1, Informative applies better. The Landgericht Hamburg is known for their peculiar opinions. For example, they maintain that someone running a website involving user content (like a forum or anything with a comment function) is liable for everything anyone writes on that website. And I'm not just talking about thinfs like hate speech, I'm talking about "a company sues the webmaster because a random user falsely said they have been sued in the past".

Oh, and if you delete the post and sign an agreement stating that you won't say that ever again (even though you never said it in the first place)? The user just needs to come back and repost his allegiation and you're getting a fine (historically in the five digits).

The real kicker? The law says that you're responsible for user-generated content on your website only if it's technologically feasible and reasonable to monitor the content. However, the LG Hamburg is of the opinion that it's always reasonable to thoroughly monitor all content, even if your forum generates 200.000 posts a month - as in the "Heise verdict", which has luckily been revised in the next instance so that you only need to remove posts you know contain illegal content. Yes, the LG Hamburg maintained that you're supposed to know for every single post made on your site whether its content is legal or not.


It's no surprise at all that Hamburg is the venue of choice to sue YouTube and possibly its users over videos infringing on someone's copyrights. I'm positive that the LG Hamburg will come to the conclusion that every user can be expected to be fully aware of the licensing status of all background music in random videos. Before they even watch the video and know which song(s) it contains.

Greedy people still Greedy

[Snaller]

News at eleven.

You can't reason with bombs and bullets

[Pezbian]

"Crusaders" are everywhere, even for this kind of trivial shit.

Much like Godwin's Law and monkeys with typewriters, the more people they piss off, the greater the chance they'll push the buttons of a psycho who has the ability to do some actual damage.

Give the wrong(right?) person nothing to live for, by wiping them out financially, for example, and you roll the dice on whether they'll take you down with them.

You can only push a fuse so far beyond rating before it opens. And only so far beyond that before it explodes famously, often with a domino effect.

Do people mourn dead lawyers?

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[NeutronCowboy]

Or the short version: Yes, you can.

That's.... messed up. I'm not even sure what else there is to say about this. At least $200 for damages, even if you had no idea that what you were doing was copyright infringement? How the hell are you supposed to stay out of this?

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[pjt33]

Not true. If you upload a video with an embedded thumbnail then YouTube lets you choose - so it's not necessary to pick a frame from the actual video at all, if your editing software is good enough.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[advocate_one]

bzzzt wrong.. Youtube give you a choice of three thumbnails from the video...

Wetware is not a tangible medium

[tepples]

When I listen to music from the radio it ends up being embedded in my memory - and yet I don't need a license to listen to the music.

Wetware is not a "tangible medium in which works can be fixed". RAM is, according to at least United States case law. I am not familiar with the copyright law of Germany, but I'll assume it isn't much different from that in other Berne Convention members.

Re:Wetware is not a tangible medium

[Rich0]

I wasn't trying to suggest that this wasn't in keeping with the letter of the law. I was trying to suggest that the law is dumb if this is the case, and I doubt this was the original intent of those who wrote the law.

If a software needs to be installed for it to be used, then that installation should not be considered copying/distribution under copyright law. Yes, I realize that it does require bits to be copied. However, copyright law doesn't exist because copying is evil - it exists to ensure that those who make creative works are able to profit from them reasonably. If I buy a copy of microsoft office, and then install it on my computer, I haven't deprived microsoft of revenue despite having "copied" it. If I make a backup of the original media it doesn't cost them a dime either. If I make 10,000 backups of the original media that also doesn't cost them a dime. If I then sell those copies on ebay for $9.95 or pass them out for free on the street, then that does impact them financially. At the same time, some forms of non-profitable distibution should still be permitted.

The a legitimate of law is to facilitate commerce. Sane copyright policies can help do that. Insane policies do not.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[broken_chaos]

You aren't. You're supposed to pay up for each and every item you ever view, hear, watch, or play.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[cpt kangarooski]

Civil copyright infringement is virtually always a strict liability offense. It's a bit like speeding (it doesn't matter if you didn't know what the speed limit was) or statutory rape (even if a minor tells you they are over the age of consent, it doesn't matter).

As for the provision the earlier poster cited, 17 USC 504(c)(2) it is of little use. When an infringement suit is for statutory damages, the range is $750 to $30,000 per work infringed (n.b. not per infringement). Being a so-called 'innocent infringer' merely lowers the minimum damages to $200 from $750. It is rare to be eligible for such low damages, though. If there is a copyright notice on the work that meets the requirements of 17 USC 401 (something like "Copyright 2009 Author's Name"), then the infringer cannot even get the reduction in the range for damages.

On the other hand, it is quite easy to be eligible for intentional infringement, which raises the maximum damages from $30,000 to $150,000.

There is an excellent case about infringement and web pages that I'd like to quote, as it is pertinent. I've cleaned it up a bit:

Do those who browse the websites infringe plaintiff's copyright?

The first question, then, is whether those who browse any of the three infringing websites are infringing plaintiff's copyright. Central to this inquiry is whether the persons browsing are merely viewing the Handbook (which is not a copyright infringement), or whether they are making a copy of the Handbook (which is a copyright infringement). See 17 U.S.C. 106.

"Copy" is defined in the Copyright Act as: "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." 17 U.S.C. 101. "A work is fixed' . . . when its . . . sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." Id.

When a person browses a website, and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright. [Footnote 5] See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that when material is transferred to a computer's RAM, copying has occurred; in the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by licence, such an act constitutes copyright infringement); Marobie-Fl., Inc. v. National Ass'n of Fire Equip. Distrib., 983 F. Supp. 1167, 1179 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (noting that liability for copyright infringement is with the persons who cause the display or distribution of the infringing material onto their computer); see also Nimmer on Copyright 8.08(A)(1) (stating that the infringing act of copying may occur from "loading the copyrighted material . . . into the computer's random access memory (RAM)"). Additionally, a person making a printout or re-posting a copy of the Handbook on another website would infringe plaintiff's copyright.

Footnote 5: Although this seems harsh, the Copyright Act has provided a safeguard for innocent infringers. Where the infringer "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages. . . ." 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2).

Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1294, (D. Utah 1999)

Enjoy, and remember section 401's effect on 504(c)(2).

tor

[luther349]

that simple from now on im using that on youtube. pretty hard to tack encrypted proxyed data.

Lawfully made media; regulatory capture

[tepples]

If a software needs to be installed for it to be used, then that installation should not be considered copying/distribution under copyright law.

And if you are installing from lawfully made media, this copying does not infringe under U.S. law and under the laws of countries that have more or less harmonized to U.S. law. But if you are installing from unlawfully made media, the defense may not apply.

The a legitimate of law is to facilitate commerce. Sane copyright policies can help do that. Insane policies do not.

It does facilitate commerce among organizations that have captured the legislature. Anything "insane" about the status quo occurs precisely where it discriminates between organizations with vs. without the capital to capture a legislature.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[TheMuon]

By that same logic, how is a person's short term memory, let alone their long term memory, not copyright infringement? No, scratch that, how long before people start getting fined for infringing by copying a work into their short and long term memory as by the above logic it is infringement.

Re:Hamburg = Texas

[clemenstimpler]

At the present time, it is the district attorney (Staatsanwaltschaft) conducting an investigation (Ermittlungsverfahren). Whether this will ever go to court, remains to be seen. And if this should happen, it will be dealt with by the criminal division of the court. The judgments quoted by you concerned civil cases.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[maharb]

That does bring up a good point. How does one explicitly know they are breaking copyright law while on the internet. I could click a link that someone says is their own original music, I download it, start playing it, and THEN find out it is a work that is protected under copyright. The very nature of the net allows you to accidentally break all sorts of copyright laws based on what people put on their sites. If someone put the whole text to harry potter on a html page, maybe even in a comment so you don't notice, bam, you have just copied the book to your computers memory. This does not only apply to German law. This could apply to any place that has copyright laws.

Essentially your computer system is committing the copyright infringement, not you. I know cases like this would be rare and most infringement is intentional, but how do you know? I could potentially have tons of copyright protected pictures I downloaded off sites that offered them free, and I have no way of knowing if some artist owns them + your computer makes copies the cache automatically, so if you have ever browsed to a site with copyrighted pics, you have broken the law, right?

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the

[NeutronCowboy]

I like your speeding analogy - although it seems to me that the proper analogy would be that you're responsible for knowing the speed limit without the speed limit being posted anywhere on the road. And that the speed limit changes in an arbitrary fashion.

Yeah, there are two possible courses of action for me: I either don't consume any entertainment at all outside the patently free of copyright (20000 leagues under the sea, etc), or I don't care about whether I infringe at all.

Either which way, the content industry is screwing itself.

Re:Hamburg = Texas

[Jesus_666]

That relieves me a little, although it still remains to be seen whether the usual Hamburg weirdness manages to find a way to manifest itself.

Re:Blame yourself for bad government

[Idiomatick]

We should stop paying for police. If you get raped in the ass you only have your countrymen to blame. ..... Fuck no, your logic sucks.

simple solution?

[sixsixtysix]

Simple solution: make mandatory licensing a part of copyright. You want protection for what now seems like an eternity? Well, then you must make it available for licensing.

Really?

[DaVince21]

It's user-generated content. Go sue the users, not YouTube. Geez, it's like sueing RPG Maker because people make Pokémon fan games with it.

Still, I'd rather see Google/YouTube pay for all that copyright infringement rather than the poor users. Or instead, I'd see the music companies wisen up a bit themselves and stop sueing over anything and everything.