Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Ordered To Remove "Illegal" Copyright Blocking Notices
An anonymous reader writes in with new developments in a two-year-old spat between YouTube and GEMA (a German music royalty collection foundation). After the courts ordered YouTube to implement tools to block videos that contained music GEMA licenses, it seems that telling users why content was blocked isn't making GEMA happy. From the article: "GEMA applied for an injunction to force YouTube to change the messages, claiming that they misrepresent the situation and damage GEMA’s reputation. YouTube alone is responsible for blocking the videos, claiming otherwise is simply false, GEMA argued. ... Yesterday the District Court of Munich agreed with the music group and issued an injunction to force YouTube to comply, stating that the notices 'denigrate' GEMA with a 'totally distorted representation of the legal dispute between the parties.' Changing the message to state that videos are not available due to a lack of a licensing agreement between YouTube and GEMA would be more appropriate, the Court said."
The messages currently reads, "Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights." Seems pretty neutral. Non-compliance with the order could result in fines of €250,000 per infraction.
With the current wording GEMA looks like the bad guy. What if it read "Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because Youtube will not come to agreement with GEMA."? Then youtube would look like the bad guy. "... lack of a licensing agreement between YouTube and GEMA ..." would be neutral.
Even better would be, GEMA has sued youtube in a German court. That court has ordered us to say, "videos are not available due to a lack of a licensing agreement between YouTube and GEMA"
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I am certain that any notice that mentions that GEMA has requested the vid be blocked will not be allowed.
Googles response should be to block any vids (in Germany) that contain any GEMA licensed music (even official channels) with the notice
"This video has been removed due to containing Music Licensed by GEMA"
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
YouTube are right to pass the buck to GEMA. I've been living in Germany for 6 months after having lived in the UK all my life, and only having very rarely seen videos blocked by the UK music industry, almost all of the videos I try to watch on Facebook or similar (usually viral videos) are blocked. GEMA need to get with the times and realise they can't staunchly deny the internet the right to use its clients' music.
No one said they have to licence it for free. The debate between Google and Gema revolves around technicalities of payment. Most other royality collectors agreed to get an undisclosed percentage of advertisement earnings for the licences, but GEMA insists on a flat fee, regardless of amount of viewers etc. of a particular track. AFAIK GEMA is the only royality collector worldwide insisting on that.
Or maybe, for maximum bad taste comedic effect, "We have been ordered by a German court to say that "videos are not available due to a lack of a licensing agreement between YouTube and GEMA", and as a mark of our respect to the German legal system, we are only following orders when we show this message to you."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Is that one of those agencies that claims a blanket right to, and gathers licencing fees for, the works of every single person working in a particular field? Whether they're a royalty-receiving member or not?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Their current statement is in no way neutral. It implies that GEMA is entirely responsible for not giving out licenses to their content for free, and that YouTube/the video's author have no responsibility to pay for music at all.
I was about to post something similar to this. Saying that the video is blocked because GEMA hasn't granted the relevant right puts the blame at GEMAs door, when the reality is that the person responsible for uploading the video hasn't actually asked GEMA for a licence. The onus is on the uploader to ask GEMA for a licence, not on GEMA to seek out people using material they're in charge of and then give them a licence. Saying that GEMA "hasn't granted the rights" implies that they were asked to do so, which almost certainly isn't the case.
It's practically saying that GEMA has refused to allow the material to be shown without actually asking them if they would allow it first. You can't blame somebody for not doing something you didn't ask them to do.
> Any person using FTFY or editing my postings gets a US$50.00 gift.
FTFY
Cool. When do I get my money!
How about "This video is available in other countries besides Germany because the copyright holders in those countries are more reasonable than GEMA has been"? Does it say something that other music companies are calling out GEMA:
Edgar Berger, CEO of Sony Music Entertainment in Munich, told Billboard:
“I suspect that some members of GEMA’s supervisory board have not yet arrived in the digital era. We want to see streaming services like VEVO and Spotify in the German market. Spotify must not be blocked by GEMA any longer. Artists and music companies are losing sales in the millions”.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Neutral is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the statement is entirely factual. GEMA has, in fact, NOT granted the rights. It is actually the youtube poster who is required to obtain (what I assume is the German equivalent of) synchronization rights in order to post the video. Youtube has found it in their commercial interest to secure those rights in the video poster's stead where they can. However, the right - BECAUSE IT IS NOT STATUTORY* - is solely at the whim of GEMA. Youtube may have offered them less than they wanted, or less than they felt was fair compensation. It doesn't matter - GEMA grants or does not grant; it is not Youtube has no say in the rights granting process. Youtube could offer them $100 per play, and GEMA could still say no, because is their right.
*I presume that US and German copyright law is similar; if it is statutory then the above is not as compelling. Note that in the US, some broadcast and all mechanical licensing IS statutory, and rights holders have no say, but synchronization (video rights) is different.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
YouTube doesn't block videos in the US containing copyrighted music. Instead, it adds ads to the video and a little "buy it on iTunes" (or whatever) link. I'd presume that some of the ad dollars are kicked back to the MPAA or other relevant racket organization in addition to the free advertising 'buy' link as payment use of the music.
Given that apparently Grooveshark pulled out of Germany because of GEMA's fees, I imagine that YouTube is encountering the same issue: GEMA wants too much money per view than YouTube can afford to pay. (About 25 cents/view, I gather.)
Would you rather they say "YouTube can't afford to pay GEMA for"? It still doesn't make GEMA look good. Honestly, I think that makes GEMA look even worse. After all, if you do take "grant" to mean "for free", people can still think that it's reasonable (if annoying) for GEMA to not give YouTube their music. Saying "can't afford" makes GEMA look like, frankly, the extortionists they are.
The problem GEMA has, in reality, is that people like YouTube and don't like them and other IP barons. And even worse for them, YouTube seems to have come up with some form of agreement with nearly all the rest of their counterparts. Thus, in a case of YouTube vs GEMA, GEMA will always look bad because that's the bias people are starting with. Even if you just say "YouTube couldn't come to an agreement with GEMA" what's the reaction? "GEMA sucks; why can't they work something out."
I am certain that any notice that mentions that GEMA has requested the vid be blocked will not be allowed.
Which is pretty much what they were complaining about. YouTube has blocked the video because they fear - usually quite correctly - that it contains music which GEMA hasn't granted them a license for. Digging a little deeper I'm starting to agree with GEMA on this one, it seems the bad press really started when a webcam feed from the Kiev protests was blocked by YouTube's automatic scanner. If this was because copyrighted music was heard on the feed or it was just a glitch or whatever is not certain, what is certain is that GEMA got the flak for censoring this webcam even though they had never requested it nor had any knowledge of it. However the message leads everyone to believe they are to blame when it's really YouTube at fault.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You're right. They don't own it, but they are licensed to be the royalty collection entity in Germany. You'll find the member organizations to be the same or a cross-section of ASCAP members in the USA.
In the USA, music royalties are collected and distributed back to publishers and/or artists by ASCAP or BMI. In Germany, it's GEMA. In just about every country in the world, it's a different royalty collection process and licensing entity, just like it's a different copyright and distribution process.
This is the fundamental reason why music and video content has been so problematic in the era of the truly global internet. There are billions upon billions of dollars invested in the archaic business models, contracts, organizational infrastructure, and jobs to support the legacy model of content consumption that had been built up over nearly a century. The internet came along and destroyed it all in about a 5 year span.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
GEMA is not owning the music.
They collect fees from "broadcasting agencies" and distribute the "revenue" from that to the "owners" of the work.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'm afraid it shouldn't be a negotiable detail. It is a free speech right of Google/YouTube to explain why something isn't available.
GEMA is, however, entirely responsible for claiming they own the music. In many cases, I bet they don't
If I were a betting man, I'd take that bet without hesitation.
Here you go. You Lose.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Digging a little deeper I'm starting to agree with GEMA on this one, it seems the bad press really started when a webcam feed from the Kiev protests was blocked by YouTube's automatic scanner.
No. Youtube shows this message for a long time, the GEMA complains about it for just as long, and the case was file long before the events in Ukraine.
However the message leads everyone to believe they are to blame when it's really YouTube at fault.
I know the German original, and in my opinion it does NOT put the blame on the GEMA.It does NOT say that the GEMA refused to granz a license, but only that no license was given.
Nor is it correct to blame Youtube for not finding an agreement with the GEMA. Neither party are willing to give enough ground for them to meet half way.
The GEMA is the organization who sole purpose of being is to license rights to broadcaster.
Thus the statement is correct: The GEMA would be the one who has to granz a license, and no such license was granted (as of now). The statement does NOT say that the GEMA refused to grant a license. That would be a lie, but that's not what YT says.
So in it's entirety it does raise the initial impression that YouTube is good and understanding whereas GEMA is the evil empire. The reality probably lies somewhere in between.
The middle being "YouTube is neither good nor understanding *and* GEMA is the evil empire"?
So has anyone check to see what the takedown message says in German?
Basically what I'm getting at is this: We know what it says in English, but maybe the translation came out to be something not-so-nice.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
GEMA tells YouTube to block the videos, YouTube does, and GEMA complains that YouTube is actually telling the users why they're blocked instead of telling them how awesome GEMA is(n't). This seems about as reasonable to me as Breivik complaining that he isn't getting blowjobs in that cushy Norwegian jail he's in for 2 years or whatever.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Dieses Video ist in Deutschland leider nicht verfügbar, da es mÃglicherweise Musik enthÃlt, für die die erforderlichen Musikrechte von der GEMA nicht eingerÃumt wurden.
Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany, because it possibly contains music for which the necessary music rights weren't granted by GEMA. (My own translation, although a native German speaker would be better).
It seems like the English that was previously posted matches the meaning very closely (IMO).
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
It says "Der typ der bei der GEMA die titel eintippt, ist ein ganz bloeder penner", which is perfectly fair if you ask me.
The thing is, with the exponential distribution potential and the speed of the modern Internet, taking something down 24 hours after it goes up has little value if 90% of the people who wanted to rip it already did anyway. When the current copyright frameworks were established, that kind of near-instantaneous, near-effortless, widescale distribution of a work simply wasn't practical, and no-one designed the system to allow for it.
You're right; so we either need to revamp copyright frameworks, or give up on using the Internet. Guess which one I pick?
In all seriousness, both RIAA and MPAA have been asking for some magic-ass technology that we technologists keep telling them is not possible due to the halting problem, and they keep insisting that we magically solve the halting problem for them. Then they ask that we implement DRM that actually works so that they don't have to change their business model, even when we tell them, again, it's impossible to create a 100% effective DRM.
I've suggested before that if the RIAA and MPAA want to stop digital redistribution of their copyrighted works, the best way to do this would be to go back to analog distribution, where it costs additional $$ to create a physical artifact as a container for their copyrighted material, and thys they can take margins from the economies of scale from physical production vs. the cost of a one-off copy.
Unfortunately, both RIAA and MPAA want to have all the benefits of digital distribution, while at the same time having none of the drawbacks.
If RIAA and MPAA are capable of solving the halting problem themselves, I'm sure that Google would be first in line to license the patent, and would probably be willing to pay a really outrageous amount for the privilege, but until then, the rest of us get to live in the real world, and in the real world, I can always analog hole and DRM scheme you come up with, and for video, I can even digital hole it by pretending I'm an LVDS display built out of discrete ICs, so unless you start licensing use of discrete ICs, you are still SOL on the DRM pipe dream.
So the idea that these idiots, just like everyone else on the Internet, can scan all the content uploaded to Youtube, and then submit takedown notices is, I think a fair and balanced approach, given that they submit them for both licensed and unlicensed content, indiscriminately, and we have to live with the consequence of them taking down things they have absolutely no rights taking down, like performance pieces licensed under creative commons and uploaded by the performers themselves, who then have to go through an unfair cost to get the takedown reversed.
This is totally aside, mind you, from the fact that, unlike real theft, or your other analogy of sleeping in someone's house, that the rights holder in this case is never derived of the use of their property, as would be the case were we talking about the physical theft of an LP or someone squatting in your living room.