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.
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 has a right to not be neutral. It is their website, and they have the free speech rights to portray GEMA however they like, in their publications.
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.
> Any person using FTFY or editing my postings gets a US$50.00 gift.
FTFY
Cool. When do I get my money!
With the current wording GEMA looks like the bad guy.
So... the current wording is correct.
I actually believe copyright law is valuable and has a place, when appropriately balanced, but it's tilted so far in favor of content owners right now, and the record labels and their associations are so abusive, that my starting position is always to assume they're in the wrong.
(Disclaimer: I happen to be a Google engineer, but I don't speak for Google and Google doesn't speak for me. In addition, my opinions on this matter long pre-dated my employment at Google -- in fact they're derived primarily from the year I spent working for Universal Music Group. Based on what I learned there, if you assume in any dispute that the labels are being slimy and abusive, you're basically always right.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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?
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?
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.