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

[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

[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

[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.

Crazy

[Mechanist.tm]

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

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

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!

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.)