×

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!

YouTube Ordered To Remove "Illegal" Copyright Blocking Notices

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the some-organizations-deserve-scorn dept.

Youtube 427

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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

427 comments

Sour grapes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345341)

Rotten whine

Bullshit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345347)

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.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | about 2 months ago | (#46345395)

What are you talking about? Nowhere does it say that the licenses have to be free. People could pay the license fee and upload to youtube. GEMA is, however, entirely responsible for claiming they own the music. In many cases, I bet they don't

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 months ago | (#46345697)

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.

Of course there are cases where industry bodies have been overly aggressive in going after people who they erroneously claimed were infringing their rights. And of course they've sometimes done that based on naive, automated detection systems. And of course they should be penalised appropriately and make good any harm done.

None of that means the overwhelming majority of people they go after aren't blatantly infringing their legal rights for real.

Re:Bullshit (1)

wes33 (698200) | about 2 months ago | (#46345935)

how do you get from

"in many cases"

to

"overwhelming majority"

this is the straw man fallacy, classic case

Re:Bullshit (4, Insightful)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 months ago | (#46345435)

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"

Re:Bullshit (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345577)

> Any person using FTFY or editing my postings gets a US$50.00 gift.

FTFY

Cool. When do I get my money!

Re:Bullshit (1)

JeffAtl (1737988) | about 2 months ago | (#46345449)

Has nothing to do with "giving out licenses for free" - where did you get that?

If anything it gives GEMA the benefit of the doubt that it even owns the content in the first place.

Re:Bullshit (3, Interesting)

risom (1400035) | about 2 months ago | (#46345475)

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.

Re:Bullshit (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 months ago | (#46345507)

Who says anything about "free"? Like all copyrights, the owner must grant permission for the material to be used. The person who posted the video may not have had rights to GEMA's music and thus GEMA filed a notice to remove the video. Period. It seems to me that GEMA is so sensitive about them being identified as the complainant.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345525)

in the rest of the world youtube and right holders seems to get along sorta kinda ok, putting the blame on GEMA seems to be the obvious conclusion

and by "may contain music" they really mean "a car drove by that might have a radio that could have been tuned into a radiostation that could possibly have been playing part of something that kinda sounds like GEMA music"

Re:Bullshit (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345567)

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.

Re:Bullshit (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345795)

Maybe you two should start the school from the 1st grade.

Re:Bullshit (2)

Artraze (600366) | about 2 months ago | (#46345869)

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."

Re:Bullshit (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 2 months ago | (#46345929)

The statement is not complete. The entire YouTube statement is as follows:

"Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights.

We're sorry."

Followed by a large "uncertain" smiley face in the middle of the video: :/

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.

What do they expect it to say? (1)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 2 months ago | (#46345383)

"We can't show you this video because we're super lame. Also GEMA is the shit. You should give them money."

Umm ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345385)

So if someone in Germany uploads a video containing copyright material from GEMA, Youtube should pay a fee?

Just inform the user that your video will be deleted and remove it.

Re:Umm ok (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 months ago | (#46345743)

So if someone in Germany uploads a video containing copyright material from GEMA, Youtube should pay a fee?

I don't know what the law says in Germany, but that's not entirely unreasonable as a premise. It's not a self-evident truth that sites hosting user-submitted content like YouTube should get a free pass for what would otherwise clearly be infringing redistribution under some sort of safe harbour rule, even if that's the way many western states have decided to handle the issue for now.

Re:Umm ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345865)

Then all GEMA has to do it write a bot to upload content to YouTube. Skip step 2 and go directly to 3.) profit!

Re:Umm ok (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 months ago | (#46345985)

If GEMA themselves uploaded the content with the intent that YouTube would redistribute it, then clearly they can't turn round and argue that YouTube was acting without consent when that redistribution happens.

May be it should say (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 months ago | (#46345399)

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"

Re:May be it should say (3, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 months ago | (#46345429)

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"

Re:May be it should say (5, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 months ago | (#46345523)

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."

Re:May be it should say (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 months ago | (#46345807)

and as a mark of our respect to the German legal system, we are only following orders when we show this message to you.

Yes, because when you're dealing with a court you definitely want to mock them, and when you're dealing with the German government you definitely want to bring up the Nazi history.

Oh, and by the way, your entire legal team and every executive who ever sets foot in a country with an extradition treaty gets 6 months in jail for contempt. Have a nice day.

Lots of love,
The German courts.

The court is right (3, Insightful)

mnooning (759721) | about 2 months ago | (#46345401)

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.

Re:The court is right (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 months ago | (#46345451)

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.

Re:The court is right (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 2 months ago | (#46345561)

This is the EU we're talking about, a country with no specific guarantee of free speech. Britain criminalizes insulting a famous person, while Germany can criminalize insulting a major corporation.

Re:The court is right (2)

Vintermann (400722) | about 2 months ago | (#46345729)

EU isn't a country, and yes, free speech is protected as a human right. You can insult famous people in Britain all you like, as long as you don't allege something about them which is not true. The problem is how Britain's libel laws favor ligitive rich accusers, but Britain is hardly the only places that favors rich, ligitive bastards.

Re:The court is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345967)

it's acknowledged but not protected in europe. A right that has a list of exceptions a mile long is not a right; it's a privelege.

Re:The court is right (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#46345565)

...hey have the free speech rights to portray GEMA however they like, in their publications.

Free speech rules only apply in the US. Every place else is up for grabs.

Re:The court is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345619)

"Youtube has a right to not be neutral ... and they have the free speech rights"

"Free speech rules only apply in the US. Every place else is up for grabs."

Just a fucking minute there skippy. I thought corporations weren't people?

It's so hard to keep up with you genuises.

Re:The court is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345801)

Free speech rules only apply in the US. Every place else is up for grabs.

While not strictly false it is a very dishonest thing to say.
Just like in the US Germany has laws that makes political speech free. Just like in the US what can be said is regulated. (They don't have "free speech zones" yet but there still is laws for libel and intimidation and such.)
You are however right in that free speech doesn't exist in Germany. Since they speak German they call it something else.

Re:The court is right (2)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 2 months ago | (#46345841)

"Free speech rules only apply in the US."

See European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, Title II Article 11 Paragraph 1:
"Article 11
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold
opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers."

Welllll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345569)

Free speech was an American concept, not a German one. Look what happened the last time someone in Germany spoke up against the government.

Re:The court is right (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 months ago | (#46345741)

Defamation law distinguishes between ostensibly-editorial and ostensibly-factual content, even in the US. The notice is ostensibly factual, and a lot will rest on its accuracy. Ironically if Youtube had made it say "GEMA are a bunch of fat jerks" it would've been perfectly defensible.

Re:The court is right (3, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | about 2 months ago | (#46345825)

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.

No they don't. They might, though it is unlikely, be allowed to do that in your little bit of the world but they aren't in Germany; that should have been reasonably obvious from the fact the court just ruled it that way. The world doesn't, in fact, exist purely as you think it should.

Re:The court is right (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 months ago | (#46345837)

It is their website, and they have the free speech rights to portray GEMA however they like, in their publications.

Not if it's defamatory, they don't.

(I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, just that your blanket statement is obviously untrue.)

Re:The court is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345853)

Going against common perception, I have to agree. YouTube is an international company that can represent itself with how it decides to handle business. If they were a common carrier or utility, then I could see a government dictating requirements for service, but they aren't and will never be. Large and a household name they may be, but they aren't a government sanctioned monopoly without competition, so if another person or organization, such as GEMA, doesn't like them, they have the right to not do business with them.

I'm honestly starting to think of the German courts as the North Korea of Europe. It feels like they are trying to make as much noise as they can to get attention, or they just have a bludgeon with Google's name on it. Do any of their actions help their citizens or any citizens, or are they simply out to get fines out of the company?

Re:The court is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345983)

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.

IBYNAL (i bet your not a lawyer). IANAL either but I would guess that same free speech claim would make them liable for damages for any infringing video, before they even had a chance to take it down.

Re:The court is right (3, Informative)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 months ago | (#46345485)

GEMA's stance is batshit crazy. The RIAA and ASCAP go overboard, but GEMA cranks it up to 11.

Re:The court is right (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345811)

GEMA's stance is #@!&. Once you're a member you aren't even allowed to make your own material freely available. Your IP isn't your own any more, it will belong to GEMA and you will be charged with copyright infringement although you're the creator.

GEMA is all about money for GEMA, nothing else.

Re:The court is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345881)

Why would an artist even get into bed with them to begin with?

Re:The court is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345489)

by default, GEMA is the bad guy regardless of what message is shown on Youtube.

Re:The court is right (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 months ago | (#46345597)

The problem is that YouTube is not the one who has to license with GEMA. That is between the poster and GEMA and YouTube is a third party.

Re:The court is right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345599)

With the current wording GEMA looks like the bad guy.

GEMA IS the bad guy. Have you tried hosting any kind of event in Germany at all?
If you play any kind of music at all GEMA will automatically assume that you played music by an artist connected to GEMA.
Even if you contact each artist individually and get a written insurance that they are they have the rights to the music and are in no way connected to GEMA you are still screwed if any of their names are even remotely similar to a GEMA member.
The only way to get away is to make a pact with an even worse demon.
You pretty much need to sacrifice ten hipsters on the grave of Steve Jobs and receive the blessing of Hitler in person to get rid of them.

The reason GEMA doesn't have "Do no evil" in their mission statement isn't an oversight.

Re:The court is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345835)

"You pretty much need to sacrifice ten hipsters on the grave of Steve Jobs and receive the blessing of Hitler in person to get rid of them.."

Amen, Bro, Amen. The truly worrying thing, they are not only a monopoly who can charge what they damn well please, they appear also entirely unchecked by regulation - which is strange in a land not entirely short of regulator red-tape otherwise.

Re:The court is right (5, Informative)

swillden (191260) | about 2 months ago | (#46345617)

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.)

Re:The court is right (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 months ago | (#46345945)

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.

I have a lot of sympathy with that point of view. On the other hand, with on-line copyright infringement, we're also talking about an activity that is ripping off the legal rightsholders left and right, yet which isn't considered a criminal activity in the way that for example theft or fraud would be.

The barriers to cost-effective enforcement as the law was originally envisaged are often prohibitively high in the context of mass distribution over the Internet. Meanwhile, you only have to read Slashdot for five minutes to find plenty of people who will argue that copyright infringement is the equivalent of a victimless crime, followed by various dubious-at-best attempts to rationalise their illegal behaviour.

So, as long as you're going to have laws that say copyright is what it is and works how it works, I don't think it's entirely fair to criticise people in creative industries who try to actually enforce their legal rights in a practical way. They should be penalised in turn when they overstep those rights, of course.

Re:The court is right (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about 2 months ago | (#46345657)

There is no burden of proof on GEMA, they can demand the takedown of any video, whether it contains something they hold rights to or not. Thus, "it may contain" is the strongest thing Google can say. It is also the undeniable truth that Youtube does not have a license, as such, it's 100% correct that GEMA hasn't granted one. It's true no matter what the demands are on either side.

Youtube has no obligation to paint GEMA in a favorable light, as long as their statements are true. They can say GEMA are evil, unreasonable greedy misers, and it would be perfectly legal free speech (as it should be).

Re:The court is right (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 2 months ago | (#46345843)

Youtube has no obligation to paint GEMA in a favorable light, as long as their statements are true. They can say GEMA are evil, unreasonable greedy misers, and it would be perfectly legal free speech (as it should be).

And yet here we are, with a court ruling they can't. Imagine which version of 'legal free speech' I'm going to assume applies a) a court in the country b) a /. poster who disagrees.

Re:The court is right (1)

pla (258480) | about 2 months ago | (#46345927)

With the current wording GEMA looks like the bad guy

So "truth" doesn't count as a defense against defamation in Germany?

future without guns & payper currency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345405)

'nothing to kill or die for.....' something about religion.... http://youtu.be/RwUGSYDKUxU [youtu.be]

slashdot only alows....

Draconian GEMA (2, Insightful)

SeanDS (1039000) | about 2 months ago | (#46345439)

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.

Re:Draconian GEMA (2, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | about 2 months ago | (#46345911)

GEMA need to get with the times and realise they can't staunchly deny the internet the right to use its clients' music.

Or Youtube need to stop profiting off providing unlicensed music? I'd have more sympathy for Google if they weren't primarily supporting copyright infringement because they profit from it. If Google were willing to sacrifice all earnings made from adverts shown on pages/videos with unlicensed content then I'd have some reason to believe they were being neutral.

Re:Draconian GEMA (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 months ago | (#46345961)

GEMA need to get with the times and realise they can't staunchly deny the internet the right to use its clients' music.

Why not? The law seems to say they have every right to do that. There are plenty of reasonable arguments for changing laws, but unless and until that happens, "the Internet" doesn't have the automatic right to enjoy others' copyrighted works whenever it feels like it for free.

Damage GEMA's reputation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345445)

Like they even had one to begin with.

"Seems pretty neutral" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345455)

No it isn't. I am not even German and I can see that.

sarcasm: How about saying, "Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which Youtube is too cheap to pay for the respective music rights." Sounds neutral too? /sarcasm

Re:"Seems pretty neutral" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345605)

It seems neutral to me. everyone knows you have to pay for the right. so the statement to me reads "we cant show this because the owners request a payment we do not agree to pay" it does not in any way say who is the bad guy (and they are only bad if you are in the "taking money for your services" are bad boat - they (GEMA) seem to think doing so makes them look bad - reality hurts i guess), only that an offer was made by GEMA and not accepted by FB. End of story. And if GEMA are the owners prohibiting showing the videos, they should ofcourse be named in the reason for not showing it. even if it is ultimately facebook being asses.

Re:"Seems pretty neutral" (5, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 months ago | (#46345761)

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 [wikipedia.org] :

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”.

Neutral is in the eye of the beholder (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 months ago | (#46345849)

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.

Paying (0)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 months ago | (#46345481)

But what if I want to pay for those rights?
Where is the option for that?

Oh wait, paying money for content is so "not web 2.0".
I'll just have to live with the fact that my personal information can't pay for everything.

What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345483)

"In May 2010 GEMA sued to have YouTube block certain titles so that they could not be viewed locally." ...

"Trying to remedy the situation, 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."

So, wait, what?

Google is right (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 2 months ago | (#46345495)

Google is right because the message they display is right - or, at least, is not wrong. GEMA may not like it, and may feel offended, but YouTube is pushing to offer a service that requires users to *not* pay anything. GEMA fights against this, and Google explains that action clearly in their message.

Re:Google is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345587)

Haha! That is so cute! You can't really be that naive, can you? YouTube is pushing for a service that requires YouTube to not have to pay anything, so that all money made off the videos displayed on YouTube belongs to YouTube alone. Try not to be so stupid.

Re:Google is right (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 months ago | (#46345703)

First of all you are incorrect. They are willing to pay, not just a flat fee that may be more than what uses generate, they want a better percentage fee that can go up and down. Do try to learn to read.

In addition GEMA is the one forcing youtube to block the videos, therefore the statement is 100% accurate.

Re:Google is right (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 months ago | (#46345647)

Why are these videos blocked? Are they being blocked at the request of GEMA? If so then it's entirely on GEMA. They just aren't man enough or honest enough to stand behind their decision. The fact that a judge is willing to side with them on this nonsense is just appalling.

Re:Google is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345755)

"I am sleeping in the cold tonight because when I enetered jedidiah's house he threatened to call the cops. Therefore it is ENTIRELY on jedidiah that I have nowhere to sleep". Sounds pretty fucking stupid, doesn't it?

Re:Google is right (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 2 months ago | (#46345941)

No they aren't. GEMA is asking Youtube for money to license the content and Youtube won't pay it so THEY remove the content instead. GEMA isn't asking that the video is blocked, and would much prefer that they got paid instead. Now we can debate if the fee GEMA wants is reasonable, but it isn't them asking for it to be taken down.

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345501)

YouTube should just not serve content to Germany. Problem solved.

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345547)

I would honestly like to see this.

Also, in the UK.

Since they have a hard-on for censorship, and continually tell Google how to run their shit. And Google owns YouTube, so...

"more appropriate" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345511)

"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."

Key words: "more appropriate"
Which means that current message is also appropriate. /thread

Re:"more appropriate" (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 months ago | (#46345759)

Not raping, pillaging, and burning is more honorable behavior for invading soldiers. Agree?

That doesn't imply that raping is honorable. Doesn't even imply that it's possible to be a truly honorable invading soldier. Just that on a spectrum from "bastion of honor" to "honorless slime", raping and pillaging makes you less honorable.

Extortion... neat. (1)

DeTech (2589785) | about 2 months ago | (#46345513)

I would have it say, "Videos are not available due to GEMA’s unreasonable demand for €0.12 per view of videos which may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights."

A few little fixes here and there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345769)

"Due to GEMA requirements of a €0.12 licensing fee per view per video containing or not containing GEMA intellectual properties, this video cannot be made available."

That seems legaloid enough.

Re:Extortion... neat. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 months ago | (#46345805)

Now, now, "unreasonable" is clearly a biased word. Just stick to the facts and let people reach the obvious conclusion on their own.

Re:Extortion... neat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345871)

"Click here to pay GEMA â0.12 to view the video that may or may not contain GEMA Licensed music."

We all gotta remember (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#46345541)

There's no free speech protections in Europe, or technically anywhere outside the US, who are the only ones where the statute says no law. Of course it's also the place where the Supreme Court says, fuck that, in its fanciful interpretations of the explicitly written law.

Re:We all gotta remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345813)

> There's no free speech protections in Europe,

In the UK we call it "Freedom Of Expression" instead. Before 1998 it was a negative right under common law. Post it was written into law under the "Human Rights Act". This was brought in as part of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ensure all EU citizens have "the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises" (Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] .)

Re:We all gotta remember (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345975)

Heh, you yanks are so cute in your delusions. Do read up on the scandinavian countries and their constitutional protections of speech and similar.

On top of that, there is a huge difference between the law and actual reality. Which country is it that bleeps and blurs on TV, eh?
Country of the free, indeed. Free to be sued for any little shitty thing that somebody can think of.

Royalty collection? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 months ago | (#46345555)

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?

Re:Royalty collection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345665)

Yes.

Re:Royalty collection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345707)

Yes. That's one of those.

Re:Royalty collection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345933)

Yes. You have to prove the music you're playing is not covered by the GEMA.

Good luck with that one.

Re:Royalty collection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345939)

Some collction agancys are appointed by laws one of them is Copyswede.

FUCK GEMA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345641)

seriously - among other things blocked *by GEMA*, the only Ukranian news channel still functioning during the recent unrest. And thats on top of their recent attempt to more or less single-handedly bankrupt every nichtclub in German with their fucking ludicrous extortion demands - Cosa Nostra has nout on these boys.

If GEMA are getting a bad press, they fucking well deserve it, and no, nor would I cave into their extortion were I you tube either. Somebody, somewhere, has to draw a line in the sand, finally, with these greedy, near-useless leeches and their never ending and entirely unchecked by regulation or sense demands.

GEMA, die already, please.

 

Re:FUCK GEMA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345753)

Did this "news channel" at any point play music, or had the potential to play music? Then they should have obtained a license before infringing.

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345645)

>Non-compliance with the order could result in fines of €250,000 per infraction.

So, greedy GEMA is looking for new ways to gain money.

Damage GEMA's reputation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345677)

No worries: those GEMA morons do an incredibly good job of that themselves!

Something's not right here. (1)

astro (20275) | about 2 months ago | (#46345691)

I'm an American who lives in Germany, and this all doesn't add up - practically all of the YouTube content that I want to see see that instead has this GEMA message is AMERICAN content. GEMA certainly doesn't own the rights to much, if any of it. I've always had the understanding that somehow German agencies haven't paid the American fees to play licensed content, or something. It's an entirely different message if I want to watch, say, Swiss content that also is not properly licensed here.

Re:Something's not right here. (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 2 months ago | (#46345819)

They don't own it but they have most likely licensed it for your region. That's unfortunately how the music business work. Content is created somewhere, then licensed to other companies around the world and they in turn handle local distribution.

East Texas? (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 months ago | (#46345771)

Munich: the "Texas Eastern District Court" of Europe.

Re:East Texas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345931)

Munich: the "Texas Eastern District Court" of Europe.

Nuke it, it's the only way to be sure.
Oh btw fuck beta and fuck germany.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345893)

"..because it _may_ contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights" -> that says it all, really. The content doesn't *have to be proven* to infringe, merely all GEMA needs to do is make an unproven claim and voila!

I do not own the copyright blah blah (1)

Bazman (4849) | about 2 months ago | (#46345913)

So are those "No copyright in this it is a fair use" messages I see on youtube not legally enforceable? I mean, I'm only listening to this whole album for criticism... Sheesh! Whoodathunkit.

Block youtube in Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46345959)

I think youtube should block viewing in Germany for a few days, posting on their site that they haven't been able to reach an agreement with GEMA, and to complain to GEMA about it.. The public backlash to GEMA would definitely stir things up.

Just tweak the wording a bit (1)

WWJohnBrowningDo (2792397) | about 2 months ago | (#46345963)

Saying "I will kill the president" is illegal, but saying "Remember kids, saying 'I will kill the president' is illegal!" [youtube.com] is legal.

Google should just change the message to:

Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany.

By the way, some pricks have a problem with us displaying the message "this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights."
 
So we're definitely not going display that message.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...