Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Music Rights Holders Sue YouTube Again

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.

The Courts 145

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Performance != Observance (4, Interesting)

LtGordon (1421725) | about 5 years ago | (#29856075)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

XPeter (1429763) | about 5 years ago | (#29856101)

Wir Deutsche sind, was Sie wirklich erwarten?

Re:Performance != Observance (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856197)

Nice try at appearing multilingual, however, I would suggest using a different internet translator next time as your statement makes no sense.

If you wanted to say "We are germans, what can you really expect?", that would be "Wir sind Deutsche, was erwarten Sie?"

P.S. great captcha: condom... he he - the robotic overlord says it in a rather excited way

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

haruchai (17472) | about 5 years ago | (#29856239)

He was probably using Google Translate

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

emilper (826945) | about 5 years ago | (#29856633)

No, actually he is correct, those inversions are used when you want to emphasize ...

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29856295)

Yoda, is that you?

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29856135)

Previously only downloading computer software (including games of course too) was illegal. I think that changed in many EU countries some years ago, and now also downloading music and movies and other copyrighted content is illegal. That would obviously include listening aka downloading from YouTube too.

Re:Performance != Observance (4, Interesting)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 5 years ago | (#29856549)

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 (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29856595)

The good thing however is that courts are usually quite sensible (well here atleast, probably not in USA) and look in to the purposes too. They would most likely laugh off a company that sues a person for randomly watching a video from YouTube that contained copyrighted music track. You'd have more ground when you bring in a case where the person had downloaded 100,000+ music tracks from P2P networks, knowing well that they were copyrighted.

That being said, even the antipiracy companies here have never went after people for downloading, even if its in law illegal. They've just went for the uploaders (where they obviously also have a better case against them)

Re:Performance != Observance (2, Funny)

icebraining (1313345) | about 5 years ago | (#29856959)

Well, when I'm forced to go to court, I'll b sure to bring a small boombox so the judge can be liable for copyright infringement too.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

gilgongo (57446) | about 5 years ago | (#29857695)

Well, when I'm forced to go to court, I'll b sure to bring a small boombox so the judge can be liable for copyright infringement too.

That's a good point. Of course I've not RTFA, but how is YouTube different from traditional radio in this respect? After all, if I am painting my house while listening to my radio, and the radio plays Britney Spears, and my neighbour hears that track, Sony don't sue the radio station, much less us. What gives? Is there some subtlety in the fact that the songs are part of videos that is the issue here?

Re:Performance != Observance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29858079)

The more appropriate analogy would be if it was your brittney spears cd.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 years ago | (#29858415)

I think a lot of confusion comes when the Euros try to figure out our law, and we try to figure out their law. Worse, we often forget that there IS a difference.

There was a story about a shop owner in the UK who was forced to remove a radio from her shop, because she wasn't paying the mafiaa any royalties. So - she goes about her business without music, singing to herself. They came back, wanting to charge royalties!! Under UK law, they had a case, but only backed down after the public expressed it's outrage.

Here in the states, royalties end when you purchase the CD, or when the radio station pays. It is commonly accepted that unless you are playing the music for commercial purposes, you owe nothing.

I don't know anything about German law at all - but when we forget that there ARE differences between Euro law and US law, these stories make no sense at all. We can't make sense of court rulings in Germany or anywhere else if we attempt to base our understanding on US law.

Because you copy the work into RAM (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 5 years ago | (#29856161)

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.

Because you copy the work into your computer's RAM to view it. There is an exception in countries' copyright laws covering necessary short-term copies, such as 17 USC 117 and foreign counterparts, but a lot of these exceptions cover copies only from those copies that are lawfully made.

Re:Because you copy the work into RAM (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 years ago | (#29857087)

That is a pretty ridiculous argument (spare me the citations, I'm sure there are 14 judges out there that have upheld it nonetheless).

When I listen to music from the radio it ends up being embedded in my memory - and yet I don't need a license to listen to the music.

I don't really have a major problem with copyright, but it is something that should be exclusively applied to people distributing things, not people who receive them. P2P technology is a gray area - I'm actually not opposed to liability there but the statutory fines need to be several orders of magnitude lower.

Re:Because you copy the work into RAM (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29857123)

The countries that follow the french copyright tradition also recognize the right for personal use. That means that all citizens have the right to access copyrighted works without the copyright owner's authorization, as long as the access is in the form of personal use only and the unauthorized distribution doesn't have a relevant effect on commercial distribution. You know, because we are supposed to be dealing with culture and not a commercial product and the access to culture cannot be affected by how much money someone has.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 5 years ago | (#29856165)

Those with money make the rules.

It's a fucked up state of affairs, and the general public is hopefully hard at work trying to put the MAFIAA out of the rule-making business, but it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Re:Performance != Observance (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about 5 years ago | (#29856573)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856889)

the way the music companies should view this anyway is free advertising for their product. However the industry's knee jerk to this is yet another example of why people should switch to open and indy music.

Re:Performance != Observance (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856171)

Personally I think this is great. The country I live in (Sweden) has made downloading illegal, as well as uploading. Everyone assumes that copyright infringment is something that only takes place on piratebay. Here is an example that shows how unintelligent it is to criminalize the person downloading something since more or less everyone assumes that if it's on youtube, it must be legal.

Imagine the law Nicolas Sarkozys is trying to pass in EU (three accusations of copyright infringment and you're banned from the internet) in conjuncture with ordinary peoples use of Youtube.

But what counts as piracy? If I download the entire Monty Python movie "Life of Brian", I'm definately breaking a law. But what if I want to have a laugh at the Lumberjack song and view it? A copyright holder could definately claim that the uploading of the Lumberjack song is infringement, and thus also the downloading. You can claim it's fair use, but there's no real difference between that and uploading a Britney Spears song to piratebay, right?

We need examples like this to stop morons like Sarkozy. Or otherwise, we need to start mailing Sarkozy youtube clips until we can prove he too is a "goddamned pirate".

-- Lars

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 5 years ago | (#29857335)

But what if I want to have a laugh at the Lumberjack song and view it? A copyright holder could definately claim that the uploading of the Lumberjack song is infringement, and thus also the downloading.

Your point is generally correct, but Monty Python is not a good example. That comedy group actually has its own YouTube channel, where they have uploaded clips http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython [youtube.com] . The channel includes at least one performance of the Lumberjack song http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython#p/c/CDFEA6D52E5CC0EC [youtube.com] , so they probably would not mind if you watch it...

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

gilgongo (57446) | about 5 years ago | (#29857963)

I think it's more likely that copyright will become irrelevant and that contracts (eg Sony BMG have a contract with YouTube that says XYZ) will become the norm. Contract wins over copyright already, and seeing as copyright is plainly stupid in the digital age (it was meant to protect the owners of printing presses for god's sake), it's just going to have to go away.

That don't mean our lives get any easier though.

Re:Performance != Observance (2, Interesting)

Heppelld0 (1003848) | about 5 years ago | (#29856265)

the copyright owners are trying to support a failing system. the laws and rights that applied years ago aren't relevant any more but they're still stupidly being enforced.

i think the world needs to view the internet as a separate country from the rest of the world. there has to be a set of regulations governing the use of the internet. for that to happen, a group has to be set up to agree what is universally and globally seen as criminal behaviour and then apply it to the internet. it can't be "this country allows this, so as long as the person was in this country, its okay", because that country's resources are accessible from everywhere in the physical world. i believe there's such thing as freedom of speech, and everyone should have a say, but there's just some things that the world would be better without.

its merely a thought exercise, but where better to air a thought than /.

Re:Performance != Observance (3, Funny)

lastchance_000 (847415) | about 5 years ago | (#29856561)

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 (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 5 years ago | (#29856429)

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 (0, Flamebait)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#29856863)

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.

Freely and cheaply? Freely and cheaply is an illusion buddy. Sure, you don't pay much to copy the bits, but there are deeper costs, namely the supply of data copy. Your analogy conveniently fails to draw that parallel, the issue at the heart of this dispute.

Also, the "monopoly" you refer to isn't a monopoly, rather a series of miniature monopolies with a single product each, many of which can compete with each other. So, yeah, monopolies without the ability to price-gouge, and with plenty of independent competition.

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.

So, out of all the thousands (millions?) of user-created videos, exactly how many user-generated videos have been deleted, or who's logs have been turned over? Probably a few, due to over-zealous enforcement, but in proportion to the whole? A drop in the ocean. These efforts are not making a dent in the legitimate side of YouTube, and content companies know it. It should also be mentioned that there are official YouTube channels where music videos for singles are released (for free), so it's not like they're launching an all-out offensive against YouTube. It's just convenient for their opponents to believe so. It helps so much to have an evil villain to hate after all.

As the supply becomes infinite, what happens to the price?

It drops. Wake me up when the supply of fresh works is anywhere close to infinite.

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.

There are very good logical, utilitarian arguments for copyright. We don't need to fall back on legal or moral arguments (although they don't hurt). And copyright doesn't sidestep this "main issue" (also known as enforcement). Content companies are enforcing their copyrights, and hopefully, if we can make copyright infringement criminal, we can simultaneously improve enforcement, and get some government oversight into the process.

Sure, we can't police private transactions, but then again, nobody really wants to. The damage of a particular copyright infringement is proportional to the number of people involved, which is proportional with the number of people you have to trust. If you share with a few close friends, then you're not worth it. If you're on a file-sharing network, sharing with thousands of strangers, then your of interest. That's thousands of potential sales lost, which will have an expected loss thousands of times more than a handful of friends sharing privately.

Now, one of the many things that anti-copyright arguments sidestep is that "everybody is doing it" does not equate with "you can't stop it", and especially "it is good". Another is that "big bad companies don't like it" does not equate with "it's for the common good". Another: "distribution of art is infinite" != "art is infinite". Another: "There exists art created created after copyright" != "a good proportion of art creation will be maintained". Another: "art will be created" != "art with plenty of variation, in terms of media and genre, will be created". I could go on.

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.

Who says? Not everyone pirates, and I have converted a few pirates with unflappable logic. You see, since we are heading to our culture's slow and painful death by stagnation, I figure I have very little to lose by trying to spread the word. In fact, in this way, it seems that piracy is a little like a suicide cult. And just like a suicide cult, anti-copyright cultists seem to naively believe that there's something better on the other side, with fuck all proof.

No argument or law or sermon is going to dissuade them from breaking laws they think are silly or unjust.

Sorry ObsessiveMathFreak, but I have counterexamples. One of them was me. Oh, and it wasn't a sermon, it was a single logical argument put forward by a very respected friend of mine.

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.

Some people just can't understand abstract concepts. It's no big deal, so long as they can recognise what they can't understand. If we listened to the stupidest and most ignorant members of society, then we wouldn't just be on the brink of just a cultural crisis.

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.

The copyright system was designed with concepts like the internet in mind. In fact, it was inventions designed to copy, such as the printing press, that spurred the creation of copyright. Back then, it didn't take a great deal of intelligence to see the adverse affects that such copying tools would have on the copyright. The internet is simply the most dangerous of the bunch.

What they perhaps didn't realise is that copying would one day become an addictive, compulsive pleasure for so much of the population. There probably should have been more education earlier on the subject, so that the logic behind copyright was well known. That would solve the addicted and ignorant pirate problem.

Re:Performance != Observance (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29857103)

"The copyright system was designed with concepts like the internet in mind."??? No it wasn't bud. It was designed to give the cronies of the crown rights to make money from someone else's work. Then the idea came along that it would be better for the ARTIST to get the rights and not be under the whips of the DISTRIBUTORS so copyright was given to the ARTIST.

Well 180 years later and we have the distributors again owning the rights and stomping all over both sides.

Given you got that so horrendously wrong, what's the likelihood anything else you wrote is worth reading?

Re:Performance != Observance (0, Flamebait)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#29857347)

Interesting. It's your conjecture that the law was passed for the sole purpose of making money from other people's work, but then subsequently admitted that the proposal for the law (not even the law itself) was radically changed prior to the law coming into effect. You also admitted that it's the artists with the rights, but then, for reasons unknown, you also claim that now is somehow different.

You also, most paradoxically, claim that this somehow contradicts my point, which is that copyright is designed to prevent the abuse of copying technology, not to instantly fold to any that come along.

Well, now I can verify that, without a doubt, you had absolutely nothing worth reading. Thanks for the complete waste of time.

Re:Performance != Observance (2, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | about 5 years ago | (#29857781)

Calm down. I'm prety sure he's talking about the long history of copyright law [wikipedia.org] :

  • Crown-authorized copyright given to printers, c. 1500-1700
  • Modern copyright law, giving the rights to the authors, not the publishers, c. 1700- 1975
  • Work for hire was later codified and artists' contracts typically had a WFH clause, 1976 - pres.

I'm surprised you didn't immediately identify what he was talking about, since you seem to have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject of copyrights and have strong thoughts on it.

Re:Performance != Observance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29857927)

I would agree with you, if the following things were not true:

Berne convention extends copyright to a point AFTER the artist's death. Explain to me how the artist can produce new works from beyond the grave.

Copyright terms have logarithmically increased, with retroactive extensions in violation of US law concerning retroactive legislation.

Lobbyist meetings are performed behind closed doors with politicians, without public oversight, despite copyright being a right that the public must agree to adhere to.

I would settle for copyright that lasts the lifetime of the artist, regardless of who purchased those rights from whom. (EG, if 90 year old walking cadaver man produces the next big hit, that big hit becomes public domain as soon as he croaks, regardless of how profitable it is to publishers.)

Copyright, like *ALL* civil rights, comes about because of a consensus agreement about the terms of those rights. Most people would agree that artists have the right to profit from their works. Most people would NOT agree that this kind of monopoly should extend after death. Copyright is an incentives program; not social welfare.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

fritsd (924429) | about 5 years ago | (#29858919)

AFAIK, the current European copyright duration is "70 years post mortem auctoris". It's preposterous.
For example: J.K. Rowling is a European woman in the 21st century so let's suppose (and hope) she lives to put 90 candles on her birthday cake. That means that with current legislation, barring further ex-post-facto law changes, that Harry Potter is her publisher's monopoly right until anno domini 2125, or 116 years from now.
Publishing companies don't have eternal life either, so what are the odds that Bloomsbury Publishing (est. 1986) will still exist 116 years from now? And if it doesn't, *NOBODY* has the legal right to publish the adventures of the lightning-scarred pubescent until 2125. Not even Google :-)
I think that copyright should be the maximum of (the author's life , x years after production) where the mathematical optimum for x was something like 14 years [arstechnica.com] ? but even if it's 40 years that seems more reasonable.
X should be > 0 to prevent the following scenario: record company A "owns" wildly famous rock star B. competing record company C gets B killed, and can start production of B's records immediately as well as A, since B's dead and his music is now public domain.
However I consider the chance slim that someone kills Harry Mulisch to get "Wenken voor de Jongste Dag" (1967) into the public domain a few years sooner (sorry mr. Mulisch).

Re:Performance != Observance (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | about 5 years ago | (#29857193)

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 [rollingstone.com]

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.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#29857375)

That's your prerogative; you may choose whichever artist you like based on their label. That still doesn't justify piracy. In that case, the artist's royalties would be less $1.60 per album.

As a side note, part of being with a label is that you have the highest chance of getting good sales, and the label takes half (or more) as insurance. If the artist didn't like it, they shouldn't have signed with them.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 5 years ago | (#29857511)

In that case, the artist's royalties would be less $1.60 per album.

This isn't a particular case, it's "the cost of a typical major-label release".

So I should just listen to different artists because those I like receive peanuts for each album? That's stupid. I like *those* artists, not some artists per label. If I can't buy that specific albums, I'm not buying "cheaper" ones, albums are not like blenders.

Giving most of my money to the labels and retailers isn't helping the artists (and hence helping produce new music), which was the problem with pirating in the first place (killing music).

If we need to give most of my cash to labels profit to keep music alive, I say let it die [flickr.com] .

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#29857669)

So I should just listen to different artists because those I like receive peanuts for each album? That's stupid. I like *those* artists, not some artists per label. If I can't buy that specific albums, I'm not buying "cheaper" ones, albums are not like blenders.

Well, unfortunately, there's no country on Earth who recognises the right to acquire the albums of a specific artist on your terms. The labels have something that you want, and it's up to you to decide whether you want it on their terms or not at all.

Show some free will and find some different artists to listen to. Hopefully some that will satisfy your needs. Otherwise, just pay them already! Without them, you wouldn't have access to the albums in the first place!

Giving most of my money to the labels and retailers isn't helping the artists (and hence helping produce new music), which was the problem with pirating in the first place (killing music).

It's not helping those artists because they made the stupid decision to go with a label. If you concentrated on other music, then you would be reinforcing other business models, and promoting culture, rather than leeching off it. That's the difference between piracy and healthy competition.

If we need to give most of my cash to labels profit to keep music alive

That's the thing; we don't. And even if we do, then there's absolutely no reason why you need to spoil it for the rest of us. You can just not buy or download any of their offering, and the rest of us can enjoy it ourselves.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | about 5 years ago | (#29857961)

I'm sure if he pirates their offering, we can still enjoy it and pay for it ourselves as well.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

makomk (752139) | about 5 years ago | (#29857739)

Also, as I understand it, production costs are paid for out of the artist's royalties, not the record company's share.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 5 years ago | (#29857221)

Now, one of the many things that anti-copyright arguments sidestep is that "everybody is doing it" does not equate with "you can't stop it", and especially "it is good".

This is indeed true. But, as in the case of copyright infringement, when so many people across political, social, cultural, economic and national boundaries have all simultaneously reached the same conclusion with regard to filesharing, this tells us at least that our current copyright laws are in need of modernisation and reform.

At this point, the idea of authors or owners having absolute rights over copying and distribution has become unworkable. My point is not that copyright itself is invalid, but rather that it is in need of reform. Reform that recognises that in the digital age, it is unreasonable to forbid ordinary people to copy works. Copyright can probably find a place in the commercial sphere, where there are few enough companies to make enforcement feasible. But trying to enforce copyright amidst the general population is unworkable and damaging.

Going back to the analogies of the bishops and the bible, the bishops lost their argument, but the bible remained. True, it ceased to be an esoteric scriptural text for a learned few, and became a mass popular work read in the vernacular by millions. But it did continue on, even if the meaning and context had changed. Copyright needs to go through a similar transformation.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#29857493)

But, as in the case of copyright infringement, when so many people across political, social, cultural, economic and national boundaries have all simultaneously reached the same conclusion with regard to filesharing, this tells us at least that our current copyright laws are in need of modernisation and reform.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. I think laws should be based on what people want, not what they say they want. If the only evidence that they can come up with against copyright are scapegoat arguments against publishers, that they feel good breaking it, or emotional appeals about the universal nature of art, then they shouldn't be in charge of lawmaking.

That's not to say that their input isn't important, but the current state of play is that a majority of people don't truly grasp copyright. Reform should be taken delicately, with trials in the free market.

There's no law against artists permitting file sharing of their works. Willing artists have had these tools at their fingertips, yet there hasn't been a great number of successful artists who have DIY distributed, which tells us either that it doesn't work, that few artists are willing to work like that, or that there's something about the end product which doesn't satisfy consumers. If we rush headlong into reform that forces artists to abide by such a model, then we run the very large risk of scaring off most of the commercial artists, and we would suffer.

But people don't realise this. In fact, if they just stuck to downloading free artworks, then that would advance reform by leaps and bounds, and would truly hurt those big bad media companies.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 5 years ago | (#29857463)

"if we can make copyright infringement criminal"

We'll make criminals of pretty much everyone.

"we can simultaneously improve enforcement, and get some government oversight into the process"

Great, my tax dollars go making sure the MPAA and RIAA members meet their quarterly revenue goals. When I first read the cautionary essay "The Right to Read" back in 1997, I thought it was silly, but I think folks like yourself read it and agree with it.

Society shouldn't revolve around copyright, copyright should revolve around society. You've got things very backwards.

"That would solve the addicted and ignorant pirate problem."

You can't "educate" people to accept a bad bargain, and right now copyright in particular is a bad bargain for this country.

I think the problem is one of fairness; you view the copyright holder's right as absolute, and they're not. I think big media companies feel they're entitled to a government monopoly on distribution forever. I don't think they are, and I'm guessing if we held a vote on it (i.e. Democracy, my views would be closer to the mainstream than yours.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#29857619)

"if we can make copyright infringement criminal"

We'll make criminals of pretty much everyone.

Pirates are so quick to accuse their fellow man. For some reason, it seems to ease their consciences.

The idea is that they already willingly made themselves liable for massive damages. We're just scaling that back to the lesser status of criminal. And, of course, they have option of, y'know, just not doing it anymore.

Great, my tax dollars go making sure the MPAA and RIAA members meet their quarterly revenue goals.

Right now, it's their right to make sure they're not being financially raped by a fair portion of the population, but they happen to be fairly loose about it, and do all sorts of back room deals to cover up their shady tactics. Oversight is sorely needed, and yes, protecting people's rights is worth money.

When I first read the cautionary essay "The Right to Read" back in 1997, I thought it was silly, but I think folks like yourself read it and agree with it.

When I read it, I shook my head in disbelief. I couldn't believe that anyone was taken in by such a fallacious strawman argument.

Society shouldn't revolve around copyright, copyright should revolve around society. You've got things very backwards.

I'll realise this when you realise that music pirates should revolve around artists, not the other way around. Artists aren't just slaves creating works for your amusement.

You can't "educate" people to accept a bad bargain

Watch me:

Piracy only hurts the labels, and they kill puppies, and have absolutely no negative long-term effects on us or good artists.

See? It's not that hard.

I think the problem is one of fairness; you view the copyright holder's right as absolute, and they're not. I think big media companies feel they're entitled to a government monopoly on distribution forever. I don't think they are, and I'm guessing if we held a vote on it (i.e. Democracy, my views would be closer to the mainstream than yours.

OK, enough cheap snarks.

I don't actually view copyright as a matter of fairness, but I find that it's in terms of fairness that most people can identify with copyright. The reasons why I support copyright are purely practical; that is copyright is the only system we have so far experienced that will achieve what the general public expect from their culture.

That's why this isn't a political problem, and it can't be solved through democracy. The fact that many people agree doesn't make them right, and doesn't make their solutions work.

Oh, and I don't think copyright needs to be absolute, but I do think it should exist. That is, it should be able to prevent people from copying a work for people without copies.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 5 years ago | (#29857705)

"I don't actually view copyright as a matter of fairness"

But unless the bargain is fair it will never stick. I don't think you can get around that.

No offense, your position on copyrights seems to be a bit like King Canute; you think that all that need to be done is educate and prosecute and that nothing else needs to be changed and that the law will be observed. But the king cannot command the sea.

Copyright laws and enforcement have gotten progressively more stringent and yet copyright violations continue to expand (by the current legal definition). At a certain point, you've got to acknowledge that it's not working and take a different approach to copyright and change the current bargain the people have made with people who want copyright protection.

Price != Value (3, Informative)

jonaskoelker (922170) | about 5 years ago | (#29856941)

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.)

Re:Performance != Observance (2, Insightful)

molnarcs (675885) | about 5 years ago | (#29856987)

Parent's comment must be one of the most insightful ones I saw regarding copyrights. When we look at the scope and significance of change a particular technology can bring about, the significance of Gutenberg's invention's the only one that matches that of the Internet... I know, I know... the Internet has many "dependencies" (electricity, cables, whatnot), but I'm referring to the impact on culture.

It can be argued that printing made culture possible. Before the invention of printing, the production of cultural artifacts was mostly embedded in rituals: they served 'magical' and religious (sometimes even legal) purposes, and what we now call art or culture were inseparable aspects of other social practices.

I believe the Internet has the potential to affect a change similar in scope. However, it is yet to be seen if it can reach its potential. They are key areas that are under constant attack (net neutrality, freedom of speech, etc.) - parent sounds optimistic when assumes that these will be fruitless. I hope he's right.

You can't reason with bombs and bullets (1)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 5 years ago | (#29857847)

"Crusaders" are everywhere, even for this kind of trivial shit.

Much like Godwin's Law and monkeys with typewriters, the more people they piss off, the greater the chance they'll push the buttons of a psycho who has the ability to do some actual damage.

Give the wrong(right?) person nothing to live for, by wiping them out financially, for example, and you roll the dice on whether they'll take you down with them.

You can only push a fuse so far beyond rating before it opens. And only so far beyond that before it explodes famously, often with a domino effect.

Do people mourn dead lawyers?

Re:Performance != Observance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29858291)

Yes. I've been involved in the Free Software world for more than 10 years. I've seen it compared to communism. The case holds a bit of water, but only a bit. There are fundamental differences. Everyone gets everything. 100% distribution. Communism cannot do this, scarcity of goods prevents it. In the digital world, storage media is literally pennies per disk at the retail level. Tenths of a penny per disk at the wholesale level. I just read yesterday about a fingernail sized chip that can store a terabyte of data. Solid state storage, that when compared to todays hard disks, can store 10,000 terabytes of data. The cost may be 100-200 dollars, but thats a lot of data. A LOT! The chip is not just a proof of concept, but a working prototype. Cost of reproduction of data is hundredths of a penny per megabyte. Costs of distribution (worldwide, instantly) is thousandths of a penny per megabyte (and in my country, internet costs are high). Design is solely by meritocracy. Only the best is kept, the rest is left. Work duties are split among thousands. Contribution rates may only be 1-2%, but everyone gets 100% (even those who have contributed nothing). Everyone is happy with the arrangement. This isn't communism. Not even close. Its not capitalism either. Because scarcity is zero, no one keeps score (no charge is made, why bother). Digital media is becoming a public commons. People may not like it, but its becoming that way.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#29856481)

There's no law against receiving or observing copyrighted material. In that case, the liable party would indeed be the distributing party. If you seek it out, or copy it yourself, then you may be liable yourself.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29856533)

Downloading copyrighted material (without having the right to do so) is illegal atleast in Sweden and Finland since some years ago, and since Germany is in EU too and they're trying to get info on the downloaders aswell I suspect it's the same thing there.

Re:Performance != Observance (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 5 years ago | (#29857553)

Because on computers, everything is a copy.

If we accidentally watched a German video (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856087)

...can we sue the musician?

Re:If we accidentally watched a German video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856253)

Du hast mich?

Re:If we accidentally watched a German video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856611)

Lets see,
 

Sarah Brightman [youtube.com]

Frank Peterson [youtube.com]

Jon Caffery [youtube.com]

Toni Cottura [youtube.com]

Markus Reinhardt [youtube.com]

Wolfsheim [youtube.com]

however it is odd that they would want to know the users that downloaded it since the last sentence on page two of the mediabiz article it seams to state that they dont care about the end users that viewed (cant quote/link since it just went down and im not on that page anymore)

Well, nothing new here... (2, Informative)

RobertM1968 (951074) | about 5 years ago | (#29856121)

Looks like business as usual. Guess they will keep trying until (a) they can no longer afford to or (b) they set a precedent by actually having such a case go through the courts and win.

Nothing beats a failure like failing again!

Hamburg = Texas (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856125)

It should be noted that the courts in Hamburg are about as moronic concerning IP (Imaginary Property) as the ones in Texas.

Re:Hamburg = Texas (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856757)

We also share a common hatred of Jews and niggers.

Re:Hamburg = Texas (2, Informative)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about 5 years ago | (#29857803)

It's not exactly +1, Funny; +1, Informative applies better. The Landgericht Hamburg is known for their peculiar opinions. For example, they maintain that someone running a website involving user content (like a forum or anything with a comment function) is liable for everything anyone writes on that website. And I'm not just talking about thinfs like hate speech, I'm talking about "a company sues the webmaster because a random user falsely said they have been sued in the past".

Oh, and if you delete the post and sign an agreement stating that you won't say that ever again (even though you never said it in the first place)? The user just needs to come back and repost his allegiation and you're getting a fine (historically in the five digits).

The real kicker? The law says that you're responsible for user-generated content on your website only if it's technologically feasible and reasonable to monitor the content. However, the LG Hamburg is of the opinion that it's always reasonable to thoroughly monitor all content, even if your forum generates 200.000 posts a month - as in the "Heise verdict", which has luckily been revised in the next instance so that you only need to remove posts you know contain illegal content. Yes, the LG Hamburg maintained that you're supposed to know for every single post made on your site whether its content is legal or not.


It's no surprise at all that Hamburg is the venue of choice to sue YouTube and possibly its users over videos infringing on someone's copyrights. I'm positive that the LG Hamburg will come to the conclusion that every user can be expected to be fully aware of the licensing status of all background music in random videos. Before they even watch the video and know which song(s) it contains.

Take it to the extremes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856129)

Either all art will become free or all art will become outlawed.

Re:Take it to the extremes (1)

MrMr (219533) | about 5 years ago | (#29856367)

Right, because the inane drivel that needs the current messed up copyright system to be profitable is art?

Re:Take it to the extremes (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29856403)

You have no idea of modern art. You still think art has to be something traditional like music, paintings etc. Actually they are producing legal art by using the law in creative ways (and creativity is the base of art, isn't it?) and performance art where the performance is done by lawyers in the courtroom.

Re:Take it to the extremes (1)

jbezorg (1263978) | about 5 years ago | (#29857147)

Wait... aren't laws based on precedent and if, as you say "they are producing legal art", are they not violating the copyright of that previous work?

Excellent news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856143)

Anybody who wants to watch grainy b&w videos of Germans singing the Horst Wessel Lied should be arrested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnGAgS8GzYg [youtube.com]

Re:Excellent news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856257)

one of my fav songs, reminds me of zombies with guns in their chests.

Crazy (4, Informative)

Mechanist.tm (1124543) | about 5 years ago | (#29856177)

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

Re:Crazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856339)

The three-strikes law and Rick Ashley could kill the internet (in the EU at least).

Re:Crazy (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 5 years ago | (#29857639)

And that's why Sarkozy is Never Gonna Give You Up.

Re:Crazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856823)

The well thought out answer would be that they probably want to find out how many people viewed the videos (as if that's not possible by looking at the numbers on the video page) to find out what amount they're going to sue the uploader and/or youtube for.

For some reason I don't think it's the real reason. But it's a good way of finding out how far they can go nowadays. Industry has more power than the people they supposedly create goods for but they never stop trying to get even more.

Re:Crazy (1)

SpectralDesign (921309) | about 5 years ago | (#29858151)

That goes without saying except for one caveat... there is a precedent... when Viacom sued Google (YouTube) for... wait for it... "One B i l l i o n Dollars" they requested the "viewing" logs and Google rolled-over for them (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/07/judge-orders-yo/). Granted, they were ordered to, but the Judge used their own prior arguments about the meaningfulness of IP addresses to support his argument.

i suppose (4, Interesting)

Heppelld0 (1003848) | about 5 years ago | (#29856189)

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

Re:i suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29857805)

Most slashdot readers have probably had conversations with non-techie folks, maybe even one of those "I'm a power user" types, and walked away amazed at how clueless the person actually is about technology.

My mom is one of those power user types, and she's been arguing with me for years why Windows is the best operating system, and don't tell her otherwise because she's been using computer's since the 70's.

It's like beating your head against a wall.

That's how it always feels when discussions on why and or how artists should get paid comes up on slashdot.

Re:i suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29857967)

It's not the artists suing.

Re:i suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29858039)

It is the people the artists were paid by for their work. As the AC who posted the parent to your reply, I would like to say you made my point.

specific videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856245)

link please

Free advertisment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856269)

Seriously?
Youtube is free advertising, not piracy.
Many times i've seen a band on youtube and then went and bought music from it. Not just listened to youtube to avoid buying stuff.

Re:Free advertisment (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 5 years ago | (#29856571)

sudo, mod this one up.
i could not agree more. there are lots of things that i've found clips of on youtube that lead me to finding and buying CD's of that work.

What next...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29856287)

And the next time they find a local radio station transmitting a song, without cpr. permission, what will they do ?
Will they sue all county inhabitants ???

Re:What next...? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29856351)

Yes. And the inhabitants of neighbouring countries who live near the border and therefore are in range of the senders as well. They will even have to pay doubly: Not only did they listen to unlicensed audio, they even listened to it through a radio station which didn't have a license in that country, so they were infringing on the legally broadcast material as well.

Re:What next...? (1)

MrMr (219533) | about 5 years ago | (#29856379)

You have less experience with Germans than some people.

They have no business in knowing who viewed them (5, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29856305)

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!

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the (2, Informative)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about 5 years ago | (#29856421)

Whether or not you can be held responsible for viewing the videos does not matter. For all non-Germans who might not know: This is the court in Hamburg. When it comes to copyright and internet you cannot find a more stupid court with more imbecile or corrupt judges than the one in Hamburg. You have enough money? You can get any ruling you like. Usually it does not hold before a higher court, but this is not necessarily expected by the "plaintiffs". The main task for the court in Hamburg is to be used to threaten and intimidate the monetary weaker party. In this case Google is not the monetary weaker party, but at least there is a chance that the "plaintiff" gets the data who watched the videos. It is very unlikely they will be sued directly. Though before the court in Hamburg this might be successful. It is most likely that the people who watched the videos get some sort of 'cease and desist letter', which costs them several hundred dollar. In Germany this is a legal way blackmailing people to pay in order not to get sued. In this case, if they do not pay probably nothing will happen. The legal base is just too weak. But enough will pay out of fear to get sued so that this scam will pay off nicely.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 5 years ago | (#29856519)

If there is any successful attempt to hold viewers accountable for infringement by watching the videos than it seems to me that entire Internet is useless for anyone withing reach of German law. How can an end user ever begin to ensure that any of the content on any site they might be visiting has been licenses appropriately or is not otherwise infringing?

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the (2)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about 5 years ago | (#29856541)

Don't tell me, tell the judges in Hamburg. Good luck. :-)

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 years ago | (#29857105)

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.

Not that US law is relevant to Germans, but USC 17504(c)(2):

(...) In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

Or the short version: Yes, you can.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 5 years ago | (#29857897)

Or the short version: Yes, you can.

That's.... messed up. I'm not even sure what else there is to say about this. At least $200 for damages, even if you had no idea that what you were doing was copyright infringement? How the hell are you supposed to stay out of this?

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the (2, Insightful)

TavisJohn (961472) | about 5 years ago | (#29857119)

Plus, how are you (the viewer) supposed to know if the video infringes anything until you have WATCHED it? You can not possibly go by the title! Have you seen how some of the vids are titled? They often have little or NOTHING to do with the video content.

And even after you have watched it, how are you really supposed to know the legal status of the video? It is not like you know if the uploaded has written permission or anything!

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 5 years ago | (#29857663)

They often have little or NOTHING to do with the video content.

Not to mention that YouTube always takes the middle of the video for the thumbnail. Some uploaders are abusing that to post completely unrelated videos with the middle few seconds being what they want the thumbnail to be.

YouTube should make the thumbnails from random places so that uploaders can't fake them so easily.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the (1)

pjt33 (739471) | about 5 years ago | (#29858259)

Not true. If you upload a video with an embedded thumbnail then YouTube lets you choose - so it's not necessary to pick a frame from the actual video at all, if your editing software is good enough.

Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 5 years ago | (#29858305)

bzzzt wrong.. Youtube give you a choice of three thumbnails from the video...

Pretty much makes Europe offlimits, doesn't it? (2, Insightful)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 5 years ago | (#29856355)

...as well as who viewed 500 specific videos

The possibility of being dragged into a German court just because you viewed something is a game-changer, I'd say.

You'd have to weigh the potential time and money lost responding to German legal proceedings against just how bad you want to see any website that is within reach of the German legal system - unless you know the contents of all Flash animations and other media for the entire website in advance .

Does Google accept !GermanContent as a query modifier?

What? They're f#@$ing with YouTube again? (1)

paiute (550198) | about 5 years ago | (#29856615)

Just wait until Hitler finds out. He's going to snap, man.

Again? But that trick NEVER works! (1)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | about 5 years ago | (#29856617)

This time for sure!

You know something is seriously wrong if... (2)

drej (1663541) | about 5 years ago | (#29856903)

...you have to explicitly say "Music Rights Holders" instead of "Musicians".

Put up the take-down order NAMING THE PARTIES (1)

crovira (10242) | about 5 years ago | (#29856949)

instead of the video so we can all see exactly who is asking for this.

It would make an acceptable policy for me and let me know that working for objected to this.

It would let us know who's who exactly and would stop the lawyers from scurrying back under their rocks.

Shine a bright light on these copyright infringements, the infringers and the protectors.

Something like:

"This video removed on order on working for pursuant to a decision taken on .
Click here for a link to a PDF of the court decision.
Click here for a list all such requests by
Click here for a list all such requests by ."

Re:Put up the take-down order NAMING THE PARTIES (1)

earlymon (1116185) | about 5 years ago | (#29857405)

OK, here's a bit of detail on the artists complaining, from TFA -

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i27945265e8c954255246318766e97f46 [billboard.biz]

But - you're not getting it.

This isn't a take-down notice. This is way past that.

This is intended criminal prosecution against the execs of YouTube and Google in Germany, as TFS and TFA state.

Big difference.

Then we definitely need to know the names. (1)

crovira (10242) | about 5 years ago | (#29857627)

It probably would never get to that stage if the made the take down notices public though.

Re:Then we definitely need to know the names. (1)

earlymon (1116185) | about 5 years ago | (#29857883)

Yeah - you may be right, you may not - German law and customs are outside what I know. TFA did say that prosecutors routinely rejected such criminal complaints and urged civil action instead.

The article(s) did make German law and culture sound very different on this point. For all I know, public take-down notices would have fueled anger for YouTube there, rather than the other way around.

NAZIS! National Socialists! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#29857007)

Sorry. It was just the first thing that popped into my head when I read this: "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."

I better build a secret room above my neighbors' house so I can hide. Once the Germans get ahold of my name I'll be doomed.

Rampant Greed (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | about 5 years ago | (#29857021)

The greed of the music/video industry is only exceeded by those in the oil business.

What I'd like to see (1)

mrsam (12205) | about 5 years ago | (#29857361)

Of course, the following will never happen, but it's a nice dream to have: Google responding to this kind of nonsense by blocking all German IP address ranges, and returning a static page to all requests to youtube.com (or all Google properties) with a static page carrying a simple message: a criminal investigation was started alleging that we are violating German copyright law, so, regretfully, you can no longer access this site; if you want to have the law changed so that you can access this site again, contact your elected officials.

This of course will never happen. The reason it won't happen is because this makes too much sense to do.

Greedy people still Greedy (1)

Snaller (147050) | about 5 years ago | (#29857823)

News at eleven.

scare tactic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29858127)

the music industry knows if will never be able to sue viewers on youtube, they can sue uploaders, it is basically a scare tactic, since they cant legally go after them they will fill news with threats and some people will stop watching them; or at least that is what they think

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?