Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Ordered To Remove Videos, Filter Future Uploads By German Court
suraj.sun sends this excerpt from Deutsche Welle:
"YouTube was told by a regional court in Hamburg on Friday not to display seven out of 12 contested clips without permission from the German copyright fee collecting society Gema. Gema claimed that its members were losing money every time their music was being displayed on YouTube. A proper licensing fee between the two sides expired in 2009. The Hamburg State Court ruled YouTube would in future have to install an efficient mechanism to filter out such content uploaded by users or face a fine of up to 250,000 euros ($330,000) for each case, or up to six months imprisonment. Knowing that a foolproof filter system looks next to impossible, Gema is now hoping that Google will finally agree to a new bilateral licensing treaty whereby the collecting society would not get an annual lump sum for the contested videos, but a fixed fee each time copyright-protected videos are watched."
I hope that Google plays hardball, and simply blacks out Youtube for Germany. The resulting user outcry would then be turned against Gema.
Or Google could just block access to YouTube from German IPs and let them see what they've really won.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If they can't automatically filter the videos, how can they automatically detect them to calculate the "fixed fee each time the copyright-protected videos are watched?"
Well, more to the point, once those Gema represented figured out that they had just lopped off their own noses despite their face, it's likely Google would be in the far stronger position at the bargaining table.
At the end of the day, Youtube holds all the cards. It's the most visited video delivery site on the planet. You can be sure that if 80 million Germans suddenly found a message saying "Because of your courts and GEMA you will no longer be able to use YouTube", it wouldn't be long before GEMA came crawling back begging.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"... the collecting society would not get an annual lump sum for the contested videos, but a fixed fee each time copyright-protected videos are watched ..."
And then start paying people to watch the videos.
Profit!
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
At the end of the day, Youtube holds all the cards. It's the most visited video delivery site on the planet. You can be sure that if 80 million Germans suddenly found a message saying "Because of your courts and GEMA you will no longer be able to use YouTube", it wouldn't be long before GEMA came crawling back begging.
Your logic escapes me. The GEMA is not interested in how many people watch Youtube. They are interested in how much money is generated by Youtube for the music industry. Google, on the other hand, would have a massive loss of advertising income.
Come on, everyone knows that the true name of the E.U. is "Scheinheiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation"
Sorry, but when Gema is using the courts to force Google into a "licensing" agreement that they've defined on their own, knowing that what the courts have mandated is outright impossible, that's called "UNILATERAL".
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
This is the problem with allowing single entities (no matter HOW they are intentioned) to be the gatekeepers to the internet. It makes the entire system vulnerable to censorship. The more diverse it is, the more resilient it is.
So remind me again: why is it that we seem to want to allow a few giant companies like Facebook and Google to control all our content?
This is an interesting dilema for Google. In my opinion google should appeal the descision asking GEMA to provide a filtering algorithm that meets GEMAs demand. If GEMA cannot or will not supply the algorithm the Google should be able to ask the courts to reverse the decision based on the evidence that GEMA has asked google to do something that GEMA themselves cannot do.
while its still fresh. Imagine the look on GEMA's face when all videos from Germany are blocked or better yet deleted. The applause Google would get from the rest of the world would overshadow what they would lose from cutting Germany off.
If they don't want to do that then at least
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I had no idea what FRAND was, but a wikipedia search indicates it covers patents. This is a copyright dispute, not a patent dispute.
END COMMUNICATION
Without youtube most of these people's works would have faded from public view or remained obscure.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
yes, but who is actually writing the treaties that governments are signing? My guess is that the corporations are the ones writing the treaties, just like they already write US laws
Google should comply wit the court order by blocking these videos. Ideally, they should block them by redirecting users to videos by bands not controlled by Gema with a message as to why they were redirected. If the users like the redirected videos enough, well that solves the problem completely.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The fines are higher than the advertising income.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Not Germany, the single most retarded court in the whole of Germany. Hamburg is to copyright suits what Texas is to patent suits. The decision will almost certainly be struck down in the next round. They virtually always are.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
That's because opponents see YouTube as a piggy bank that you can shake and make it rain money.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
"They"? No. Previous Germans did that. Don't tar the current lot with the same brush.
That's for video's specifically targeted at sharing the "infringing" content.
But they also take issue with people uploading their own videos /w copyrighted soundtracks, and how about if I upload a video of myself singing "Song X" (I'm not sure if this is considered "fair use", though it may considered "cruel and unusual punishment" given my singing ability).
You can be sure that if 80 million Germans suddenly found a message saying "Because of your courts and GEMA you will no longer be able to use YouTube", it wouldn't be long before GEMA came crawling back begging.
Youtube already blocks quite a few current music video clips for german IPs saying "The video is not available in Germany because it might contain music not licensed by GEMA."
There's a firefox plugin (ProxTube) which detects exactly this and reloads the video using a non-german proxy.
I wonder just why some people here seem to think that stopping copyright infringers (impossible) is an end which justifies the means. Here are the usual solutions: cut off internet connections of accused copyright infringers (bad because of collateral damage), use automated systems to detect and remove supposedly copyrighted material (bad because of collateral damage), and then there's always giving copyright holders the ability to do whatever they please (bad because of collateral damage). All of those have a common drawback: collateral damage. If your solution to stop copyright infringers from copying your precious data is a solution which would harm innocents too, you can fuck right off.