Slashdot Mirror
German Copyright Group To Collect From Creative Commons Event
bs0d3 writes "In Leipzig, Germany, an 8 hour music/dance party event was organized to play nothing but creative commons music the entire time. A German copyright group called GEMA told the organizers that to be certain that no rights were infringed, it would need a list of all artists including their full names, place of residency and date of birth. After the event GEMA sent an invoice for 200 euros. They claim that behind pseudonyms some of their artists may be hidden and produce things that they would not earn anything from. According to German law, you are required to prove that an artist is not with GEMA. So even though GEMA probably does not have rights to any of the music, they are not required to prove that they do."
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I desperately need to find out what Sourceforge's top downloads are. Does anyone know where I can get this information???
It has become necessary that we all ignore copyrights from this point on, in civil disobedience. This has really gone too far. Take a look - an organization that represents a minority of the population's interests, can have more privileges than all other citizens, and other citizens are obliged to that minority. this is against democracy. property rights, cannot come before democracy.
Read radical news here
title says it.
they should rebel, the gema artists that is.
also germans should rebel, because gema is collecting money it has no way to deliver to the lawful owner(the artist).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This is really sick, and sadly the same here in Hungary. A specific rightsholder group is granted legal monopoly on all the music business, and there is no way for art to exist outside them. They also have the right to tax all storage media because "they would be used for piracy anyway".
And here I thought our teutonic neigbour to the north was more civilised. It seems not.
GEMA is like SIAE. Different name, same shit.
Bunch of legalised criminals.
I asked our beloved SAZAS about this matter. The question specifically was: what was your opinion on playing open-source / cc music in a waiting room? The reply was that since all authors must report to SAZAS and report their incomes and creative commons authors do not, such music was illegal in Slovenia.
A German copyright group called GEMA told the organizers that to be certain that no rights were infringed, it would need a list of all artists including their full names, place of residency and date of birth.
So, to be sure no rights are violated, they need to be given private details about 3rd party individuals that they have no right to know?
IHRE PAPIERE!
I've just recently finished writing a book (prologue and first three chapters here, available under CC-BY-NC-SA) and I feel that, given that Apple iPhones can run the Kindle app, and my book will be available on Kindle, that since Apple can't prove that people aren't pirating my book I feel entitled to a cut of every iPhone sale. Let's start at 1% retroactive and see what we come up with. ... Oh, you're saying I have to basically own the government, like the RIAA/MPAA/GEMA do? Otherwise I have no real recourse, and it's touch shit for me, because I can't buy my own politicians?
Damn. Guess my novel might have to get by by giving back to people who read it, by allowing them to legally and safely write their own fanfiction, or to reimagine the characters and story as they see fit.
I really wish I was a rich, government-manipulating scumbag. That'd make this whole process so much easier.
P.S. I'm using Chrome. How come I can't seem to log in these days? It accepts my username and password, but just goes back to "Login"...
after i explained what GEMA is / does: "wtf? so they're the music-nazis of the world?"
The SACEM still sent a bill.
The treasurer of the band (not paying attention...) paid it.
After becoming aware of the error, the treasurer tried to reclaim the money, to no avail.
So, then the composer sent a letter to the SACEM, explaining to them that they had solicited money in his name, and that he wanted to have it.
A couple of weeks later, a bank transfer showed up at the band's account (not the composer's personal account) where the fee was reimbursed in full, but no explanation, nor excuse...
Probably, in the German case, it might not be so simple, as they played stuff from multiple composers, and if one composer complains, the GEMA could always claim that they solicited money on behalf of the other composers...
...is always more profitable than working, because you hardly have any overheads. You just need to supply the occasional fawn for your lawyers to swallow whole, before going into torpor until their next court date.
At some point, our leaders and their pet intellectuals are going to have to deal with the fact that one of the most basic assumptions behind our societies - that profitability is equivalent to economic success - is fundamentally flawed.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I have long opposed extreme copyright terms and bad copyright law, and supported the public domain and creative commons licensing - but I have also supported paying artists for such work as they have copyrighted. I have always tried to buy a legitimate copy of music I like, where it has been available, and encouraged others to buy legitimate recordings.
But this is simply too much. If the copyright organizations are going to insist on collecting money for works they do not own nor represent, then they can go to hell. Really, this is just extortion. They deserve no more sympathy.
Even paintings now, some % after every sale goes back to the artist after the first sale. Auctions and the like have to uphold it. And if the artist isn't found, it gets put in some type of fund. Amazing amount of agencies spring up claiming to represent this or that artist, many overlap.
Amazing what government stupidity brings.
Else why are there no property taxes, zoning laws, abandonment and safety laws on copyrights?
Copyright IS a privilege.
Guys, the TFS is bullshit. Germany has no concept of "copyright". But even many Germans don't know that.
We have "Urheberrecht", which is like "authors' right". The privilege of the original author to get something for his work. As opposed to the privilege to "copy" (usually the badly paid works of others).
The former once made sense in pre-Internet times. The latter is based on the lie that one could actually control who makes a copy of what information, and was designed to abuse artists from the very beginning.
The GEMA was originally there, to collect the money for those artists, and hand it straight to them. That service did cost a small monthly membership fee.
But nowadays, the GEMA is a bunch of 80+ dudes that keep practically all the money for themselves and buy seconds yachts and huge mansions.
While the membership fee is more expensive than what they get out for 99.9% of the artists. (I'm not even exaggerating.) Most members get something like 50 cent or less.
But GEMA acts like if you don't do anything, you're automatically a member. Without asking you.
And if you want out, they often simply act like it didn't happen and keep collecting "for you" anyway.
Oh, and their fees for "performing" a song are crazy high. High enough that no Internet radio station here could afford it, even with lots of advertising. (We tried, and had to shut down.)
This is just a simple case of some idiot in some federal bureau with nothing better to do. The Gema konzept isn't all to bad, but with all the DRM laws added in the last decade it falls flat on its face in so many places. For instance, you are allowed to make private copies of your music and there is a basic royalty on copy media such as CDRWs that goes straight to the GEMA - but it is illegal to circumvent copy protection. As usual: Lots and lots of messy and broken laws in this field by people without a clue.
This whole GEMA/GEZ thing is in for a complete redo by people who understand the subject. Until then stuff like this will continue to pop up every now and then.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
GEMA claims that they are collecting money belonging to their artists. But at the same time they admit that they cannot know who these artists are. Therefore they will have no way of giving the money to these alleged artists. Funny how german lawmakers are seemingly unable to see the total absurdity in this
This is my biggest bone with copyright laws - it gives rights to collect copyright fees to private entity - and what's most important - they don't have to prove that it is their representative they collect money for. Our local agency claims that they have rights to do it so, and after author will make agreement with them, they will pay money back (minus admin fees of course). This is bordering with absurd, but honestly, people lack of insight in such difficult subject helps heavily, as lobbyist groups have freeway to copyright laws.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
It's not a bad idea after all. Look at this scenario:
An artist does a painting, sells it while he's not famous for a thousand euros, then some time later he becomes famous and his painting is sold to a new owner for a million euros.
Shouldn't the artist get some of that money? or should only the "art industry" feed on it?
FTA: you are required to prove that an artist is not with GEMA.
How do you prove the negative? All this GEMA group has to do is not accept whatever "proof" was offered until they get paid or sued.
What if they don't pay? GEMA would have to take them to court, right? Is a judge really going to make them pay, without GEMA pointing out even a single song played at the event that infringed one of their artists' copyright? Is there any precedent for that in Germany?
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
It once made sense to have a law that requires the organizers to prove that the music played wasn't subject to GEMA fees, because it used to always the case. However, reality has changed and the laws have to catch up. This catching up is done like this: someone sues or gets sued and it goes up up up until the supreme court rules that the law has to be changed.
The GEMA could have slowed this process down by being reasonable, but evidently they are not. I expect lawsuits, backed up by civil rights groups, to happening soon.
But at least our (Dutch) law has provisions against criminal organizations. These organizations are clearly criminal. Is there really nobody who files charges against these mafiosi?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
"Go Fuck Yourself"
It's not a bad idea after all. Look at this scenario:
An artist does a painting, sells it while he's not famous for a thousand euros, then some time later he becomes famous and his painting is sold to a new owner for a million euros.
Shouldn't the artist get some of that money? or should only the "art industry" feed on it?
No, since the artist fucking SOLD the painting in the first place. He got compensated for it.
No one should have a lock on the future.
And what would their reaction be, if I simply didn't pay and told them to fuck off?
Considering they don't own the rights to the works on display, they would have NO comeback whatsoever, courts or otherwise.
People without talent nor skills need a way to earn money, too. That's why GEMA & similar exist - so idiots could be employed!
I've been stuck in the same dilemmy in Germany now for more than ten years, and how crazy this whole legislation is and has always been never occurred to anybody in public.
This goes so far that the rates are actually too low to really complain about, but high enough to be a big headache for small concerts and stuff.
If an artist is signed with GEMA (so, get's money from them), he even has to pay GEMA fees in case he organizes a concert himself, for himself, only playing his own songs.
He will get the money back later, of course - but subtract bureaucracy fees. Same goes on for CDs!
It's just completely crazy. So as an artist, you are either "in" - and pay to eventually get paid - or "out" - and you never get paid at all.
The winners? Big acts, as usual.
When one person has a right to collect money from another persons work without compensation, it's slavery. GEMA are slavers. They are able to profit off work that other individuals do without having any property or reason for doing so.
some time later he becomes famous and his painting is sold to a new owner for a million euros.
Shouldn't the artist get some of that money? or should only the "art industry" feed on it?
No, he shouldn't get any of that money. He should paint another painting and sell it for a million euros. (Or paint 100 more, sell each of them for 100K, and screw up the market.)
Never mind the copyright arguments. How do you prove you are not a member of some group? Do you need official papers stating all the groups you don't belong to?
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Go to offices and star beating people to death.
In the US, at least back when I worked in the industry, we licensed our music "en masse" from ASCAP. I assume GEMA is similar. This was a HUGE BOON to us. We didn't have to work out individual licensing relationships with individual artists. We didn't have to negotiate with individual labels. We didn't have to try and account for "now, who gets paid exactly?" for every song. We didn't have to track every track we played and be auditable. All we had to agree is "OK, we'll be playing some music from some of your members. Here's a check. You deal with who gets what."
If you're a bar, or a small performance space, or a "special event" space, or or someone else who uses music in the background, this is a HUGE time and headache saver. You get a license from ASCAP that allows you to play anything they own, and then just cut a check for the hours the music is on.
Admittedly, if you're a licensee, and you wind up playing a track that isn't ASCAP owned (e.g. something under CC), you wind up paying ASCAP for something they don't own. You know what? It's still WAY cheaper and WAY less hassle than trying to account for every individual song. It's WAY less hassle than ASCAP doing secret audits to make sure your claim that "oh, yeah, 25% of the music we play is Creative Commons, so we'll pay you 25% less" is actually true.
If you do a private show in a venue with an ASCAP license, you pay that license if you're playing music. Any music. If you didn't understand that, you either got ripped off by the space owner, or didn't do your homework. Because their license says that's what THEY pay, and they pass it along. No space owner in their right mind wants the hassle of trying to account for this. And $200 is hardly a lot to pay for an 8-hour event.
Sorry, but I just can't feel sorry for these folks. They chose the wrong place to hold their event, and/or didn't read the paperwork.
The argument here seems to be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In order to have a system where someone can occasionally host an event with royalty-free music, we'd need to change the entire system. Which makes things worse for 99% of people involved 99% of the time. I just can't feel outraged about this.
It's a country where:
Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann remarked upon delivering the verdict, "The court is of the opinion that Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible. For the informed customer there remains the predominant overall impression that the device looks."
which essentially grants Apple monopoly on all rectangular multi-touch based display tablets with one button or less on the face -- the current industry standard.
>Shouldn't the artist get some of that money?
Of course not!
I make a stock deal but later find out that I messed up because I sold too early. Should I not be compensated for the loss of my potential profit?
Of course not!
So you're an artist? Here's how to get money.
You're a performer? Go play live.
You're a composer? Sell your writings, up-front, then go compose some more.
Problem solved.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
GEMA - yet another association which has failed to adapt to newer technology and now is clawing at air while it sinks into fiscal bankruptcy. The moral bankruptcy came much earlier, when its' ur-members advocated the forced legal enlistment (enslavement) of authors (rather than works).
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" [Napoleon] Even by the low standards for such dinosaurs, GEMA appears unusually stupid. This is more stupidity and will hasten their demise--the publicity of their unreasonableness with encourage further bypassing/non-compliance. Eventually, the Piratenpartei will administer a coup-de-grace.
Please look at the gaming industry. It has grown considerably larger than movies even though the product is comparatively easy to copy illicitly. Nevermind the occasional whining about lost revenues, it is big and healthy. Why do people pay, then? At least partly because they want to, to reward production and encourage development.
Why should an artist get more then people working in other areas. Should someone who sells a piece of land be forever entitled to a % of any new sales? Or even rents on buildings on that land? Or should a stock holder be entitled to dividends even after he has sold his stocks?
No. It is a terrible idea.
What if you buy a BMW 1201Whatever and later on this car becomes a classic collectors car, making it worth more money than it originally was? Shouldn't BMW get some of the money?
What if you buy a designer shirt from Le Whatever and later on this shirt becomes a "vintage" collectors shirt, making it worth more money than it originally was? Shouldn't Le Whatever get some of that money?
What if you buy a house and later on property prices go up and the house becomes worth more than what it was. Shouldn't the person who sold you that house get some of the money?
No. When you sell something, you've sold it. Meaning you've lost all claims to it. That is the risk of selling something. You may lose future income, but you have also protected yourself from the item losing value by realising its value in cold hard cash.
If the artists want to profit from future price rises, they should sell a share of the paintings. They can then still profit from future price rises, but obviously they have to take the risk of the painting actually decreasing in value over time.
The artist having the cake and eating it too is not fair. Not fair at all.
This is beyond ridiculous. These people live outside of reality (and at our expense).
Well, thats a nice sweeping statement, shame it doesn't mean anything. If you think it does, define the words "property", "functioning" and "democracy" - as precisely as possible.
Does the emergence of property rights in China make it more democratic?
Yes and No. China is certainly a more human place since limited property rights were introduced. And for those pessimist who see the glass as half full, property rights does not mean democracy – it is a necessary but not sufficient condition – hence the word “requisite”.
Does the fact that many EU countries have a larger public sector than, say, Russia mean that they are less democratic?
You hit the nail square on the head. Take a look at Boris Berezovsky. He criticized the Kremlin and then they stripped his T.V. Stations away from him. I have some issues with European media (like the captive French media) but this could not happen in Western Europe. Sure, the state can lean on you economically – but only so far. And you can always buy/rent a printing press from a private party instead of be censored by a state owned printer. One needs to have the rule of law to have democracy – and that rule of law must be extended to property.
This is the problem with ideological rhetoric. It all sounds very good, and is carefully phrased to be almost impossible to disagree with, but is devoid of any useful underlying meaning.
Not so. Read up on Milton Friedman. You may disagree with his conclusions – for example his OPPOSITION to the “Copyright Term Extension Act” - but he is not some empty headed shrill.
With this in mind, US copyright was created as a balance, an incentive to people to produce in return for a LIMITED copyright before the works fell back to the public domain. Limited used to mean 14 years, as in people were personally supposed to see their own works go out of copyright to have incentive to create more to keep the money coming in.
Papers please!
If "Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy." was not proclaiming copyrights as a property right, then what was the point of putting it in answer to someone saying copyrights ought to be thrown out?
Other posts say public disobedience is needed to fix this, but I think what we really need is much more public education. Most people (and I'm SURE, most Congresspeople) don't know shit about IP law. Lawmakers are happy to go along with what their industry lobby friends tell them they need. The public at large is at best woefully ignorant and at worst dangerously ignorant about what is and is not allowed under copyright. Trademark and patent law could be OK with relatively little reform. Copyright law needs a major overhaul. Until the public (and Lawmakers) realizes that, it will continue to be business as usual.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Same thing at play here nothing unusual.
You get stopped, issued a summons. Unless you can convince the judge you weren't speeding you must pay.
I can't think of a single thing that would benefit from more than 10 years copyright.
And, because the expiry of copyright needs to be of use to be worth anything, the copyrights would require that software come with source code.
The GEMA concept is bullshit, based on the outdated and notion that only a handful of musicians exist and make money from their work. It's completely unworkable in today's society.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
No. That's what copyright is for. He could have invested a little more for a high-quality scan before selling it. Then, he could make a decent living on reproductions if he ever gains that fame.
Sometimes things become so totally irreversibly screwed, that the dishonesty and grotesque misuse of the democratic system by a small minority hiding behind the equality of their artists, cannot be expected to be repaired through the same logic that caused the drift in the first place.
So I say shoot 'em. Really. It sends a very strong and clear message, and is the fastest way to clean things up. Don't shoot the workers, they would be glad to just jump ship and work for the next shady operator. Shoot the people that stand to REALLY benefit for this kind of a racket.
Believe it or not, this is the most truly democratic system around. If the majority are pissed, they will kill you. Don't misuse the democratic system, for when you do, those laws will do nothing to protect you.
Unfortunately, we live in an era where everyone born into a democracy has been done so castrated, and won't stand up. They just whine on /.
I don't know about German law, but in the US, you're innocent until proven guilty. They *DO* have proof that their music is all CC licensed, but GEMA won't accept the proof. Perhaps this can be brought into the courts and ruled to be an unenforceable law (since it presumes guilt instead of innocence)? Or is that not a basic concept in German law?
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Nice! Since it's practically impolssible to prove the negative, GEMA always wins...
So why cant the artist just invoice GEMA for the bureaucracy fees and sell the invoce to a debt collector?
GEMA and GEZ are two evil twins that work using Mafia tricks in germany... Its like having to pay the store owner because you passed in front of the store and "could" have bought anything inside.
What is really lame about both these mafias ist that most people pay so that they are can live without the stress of having one of the GEZ pimps show at their door to make them pay "or else..."...
some time later he becomes famous and his painting is sold to a new owner for a million euros.
Shouldn't the artist get some of that money? or should only the "art industry" feed on it?
No, he shouldn't get any of that money. He should paint another painting and sell it for a million euros. (Or paint 100 more, sell each of them for 100K, and screw up the market.)
Unless the artist is dead; then, his family should paint it on his behalf in colored tears. Kind of like most dead artist's families are bitching about where their money comes from.
The GEMA concept is bullshit, based on the outdated and notion that only a handful of musicians exist and make money from their work. It's completely unworkable in today's society.
Which is exactly why they'll try to make it work. You know what they say about history....
If GEMA doesn't have to show their relation to actual creators, and such false charges are billed or collected, then fundamentally it is a form of copyright fraud whether enabled by National (Socialist?) legislation or not. Using some kind of "opt out" logic is merely a means of enablement to establish a more perfect kleptocracy. This is a gross violation of personal (property) rights of the whole population.
Yeah, though this Italian example sounds like 'when in Rome, do as the romans do'
I think you are right there. I was just replying to the UID Qbertino who thought that the concept isn't all too bad.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
It's not called "ridiculous". It's called Europe.
What Europeans love to ignore in their hatred for America is that places like California (ala America) are far more liberal, far more free, and far more democratic than anywhere in Europe.
Common law combined with a well restricted government is the reason 275 years made us richer than thousands in Europe. When its good its great; when its bad its genocidal.
They claim that behind pseudonyms some of their artists may be hidden and produce things that they would not earn anything from. According to German law, you are required to prove that an artist is not with GEMA.
Let me get this straight: GEMA can collect money for all anonymous and pseudonymous artists? So much for making up protest songs.
In my town, the local kindergarden sang christmas songs for their parents. One parent recorded these and made a CD and gave copies to other parents. GEMA showed up and made them pay or go to court. Also, a friend of mine who is a local musician and writes and plays his own music has to pay GEMA when he plays at a bar. It's his music that he wrote.
GEMA feels they own all music, not just copywrited music.
Even paintings now, some % after every sale goes back to the artist after the first sale.
UK too: http://www.artquest.org.uk/articles/view/first-semester-report1
I think people have absolutely no idea what artist lives are like, especially painters. And the replies i got to my post show it clearly.
Most painters live in misery all their lives, selling their paintings for almost nothing.
Then a few become famous, and it's mostly the art industry that make money off of them.
Sorry, but the car analogy does not work here!!!
The Germans are doing something in the right direction to try to get the money to the artists instead of to the resellers.
It may not be perfect, but it's better than the system we have in other countries.
In the music industry, no one is surprised to see that the artist or their kids get some money decades after they created a music. The Germans are trying to do a bit of this for painters, I say it goes in the right direction.