The beginning of the end for youtube?

[Locutus]

YouTube loses court battle over music clips



YouTube could face a huge bill for royalties after it lost a court battle in Germany over music videos.
A court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube is responsible for the content that users post to the video sharing site.

It wants the video site to install filters that spot when users try to post music clips whose rights are held by royalty collection group, Gema.

The German industry group said in court that YouTube had not done enough to stop copyrighted clips being posted.

Rights battle YouTube said it took no responsibility for what users did, but responded when told of copyright violations.

"Today's ruling confirms that YouTube as a hosting platform cannot be obliged to control the content of all videos uploaded to the site," said a spokesperson for the video site.

"We remain committed to finding a solution to the music licensing issue in Germany that will benefit artists, composers, authors, publishers and record labels, as well as the wider YouTube community," they added.

Gema's court case was based on 12 separate music clips posted to the website. The ruling concerns seven of the 12 clips.

If YouTube is forced to pay royalties for all the clips used on the site it will face a huge bill.
Gema represents about 60,000 German song writers and musicians.

If enforced, the ruling could also slow the rate at which video is posted to the site as any music clip would have to be cleared for copyright before being used.

Currently, it is estimated that about 60 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube worldwide every minute.

YouTube owner Google has yet to comment on the ruling.

The court case began in 2010 and came after talks between YouTube and Gema about royalties broke down. In 2009, the stalemate meant that videos from German recording firms were briefly blocked on the site.

Gema has rung up several victories against sites it has claimed are using music without paying royalties.

In 2009, file-sharing site Rapidshare was told to start filtering songs users were uploading following action by Gema. In March, 2012 a second judgement told Rapidshare to be more proactive when hunting down content pirated by users.

Music streaming site Grooveshark pulled out of Germany claiming licencing rates set by Gema made it impossible to run a profitable business in the country.


sauce:


BBC News - YouTube loses court battle over music clips

 

[spaminator]

it would really suck if youtube got shut down because of copyright.

 

[MHz]

When is somebody that gets caught going to counter sue the music industry for broadcasting music over public airwaves (for a price) and then claim that recording was never paid for (when you use it as a 'memory recall enhancement'.?
Let alone the enticement to steal as the cost is past what most people (who have a lot of free time to listen to music) can afford, it's like candy to a child and the end result is conviction in a court of law just because of listening to 'free music'.
Singles off an album are what creates the false desire that a person 'must have' the whole album. They should be restriced to text in all advertising and then no pressure on the buyer. I can see passengers singing on the bus as being the new craze in the evolution of music and a whole lot of members of the former music industry are going to be kicking horse-turds down the street while mumbling to themselves.

Under the fair use law couldn't you copy 20% and have watermarks for the artist and label company?

Nobody at fault if 5 people each do a different 20%

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

The Music Industry (in particular the Warner Music Group) still doesn't get it.

 

[B00Mer]

The Megaupload site was the same thing...

Google owns YouTube and they have huge deep pockets..

 

[bill barilko]

It wants the video site to install filters that spot when users try to post music clips whose rights are held by royalty collection group, Gema.

This already happens with some music-as a Canadian I've been blocked from viewing certain vids.

I thought you eggheads all knew this then I remembered I have never seen one of you post a music vid here ever.

 

[gopher]

I don't mind if this happens on modern music but I would hate to lose nostalgic videos, movies, or other public domain stuff.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Why can't these knuckleheads understand that by posting music videos they are in fact advertising what it is that music the industry is trying to sell?

 

[MHz]

I don't mind if this happens on modern music but I would hate to lose nostalgic videos, movies, or other public domain stuff.

When did the silent movies ever become public domain? By those rules there should be a cap on allowed profit and then it becomes public domain rather than netting 30,000% profit

 

[Liberalman]

Why can't these knuckleheads understand that by posting music videos they are in fact advertising what it is that music the industry is trying to sell?

Most of the people that listen to Youtube don't buy the songs they listen to.

As far as advertising go if one looks at true advertising of a song , one gets a soundbite of a song for one to be motivated to buy.

The music company that owns the copyright gets to choose what advertising they do

When is somebody that gets caught going to counter sue the music industry for broadcasting music over public airwaves (for a price) and then claim that recording was never paid for (when you use it as a 'memory recall enhancement'.?
Let alone the enticement to steal as the cost is past what most people (who have a lot of free time to listen to music) can afford, it's like candy to a child and the end result is conviction in a court of law just because of listening to 'free music'.
Singles off an album are what creates the false desire that a person 'must have' the whole album. They should be restriced to text in all advertising and then no pressure on the buyer. I can see passengers singing on the bus as being the new craze in the evolution of music and a whole lot of members of the former music industry are going to be kicking horse-turds down the street while mumbling to themselves.

Under the fair use law couldn't you copy 20% and have watermarks for the artist and label company?

Nobody at fault if 5 people each do a different 20%

Copyright is where the music companies and artist make their money and anyone who listens to downloaded music is stealing the money that an artists makes,


Internet for the masses is still new but the laws are starting to catch up and pretty soon one can be liable for any loss a company incurs.


Since Google took over Youtube they dramatically increased their use of paid advertising so in googles case they should pay

 

[Niflmir]

The situation is very bad in Germany.

Music that can be shown on YouTube must be licensed through GEMA, so that the "artists" can receive royalty payments. Music that isn't licensed is simply not allowed to be played, even if the artist put the music on YouTube themself. GEMA then goes around blocking these songs on YouTube.

Given that YouTube already has the most sophisticated heuristic music analysis that I am aware of, they cannot really do anymore to stop users from posting infringing music as far as I can see. The logical option might just be to stop YouTube from being displayed in Germany.

Germany has a bunch of other backwards internet related laws that I'll mention if anyone is interested.

 

[Liberalman]

Germany has a bunch of other backwards internet related laws that I'll mention if anyone is interested.

I am interested

 

[JamesBondo]

lets hope that youtube's solution is only implemented in germany. otherwise, we will all suffer due to the whims of germany......the nazis will win this time.

 

[MHz]

If there was ever a standard set that had a lower limit on quality to where the original was quite a bit better would a court rule that it was of such poor quality (mono) that it was not worth any money at all. The same might be said for video that is originally HD and at an increased frame rate so slow motion is smoother. Once the quality is down to 320 and framerate down to 20 it would be considered to also be worthless.

Just out of curiosity is the charge based on length of a single song over the length of the album the song comes from? A song that lasts 5 min taken from an lp that is 60min long is pirating 1/12 of the material. If the single song cannot be purchased separately from the lp then it is not a separate work. If it is available as a single and the work it comes from is 1/12 songs then it should also be 1/12 of the price of the whole album. If the single is sold for 1/6 of the price that is a 200% increase in profits with zero work being done, racketeering territory and nobody is pursuing that aspect of the industry.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Most of the people that listen to Youtube don't buy the songs they listen to.

Really I have bought a bunch of music based on what I have seen and heard on Youtube. From Metallica to Diana Krall. What people don't get is that piracy is miniscule next to benefit.

As far as advertising go if one looks at true advertising of a song , one gets a soundbite of a song for one to be motivated to buy.

So sound bites only on the radio I guess.

The music company that owns the copyright gets to choose what advertising they do

The music company has been screwing the Artists for a long time and now it seems they are scared.

 

[Niflmir]

I am interested

Well if you have an insecurely guarded wireless connection (password protected, but weak password) and somebody hacks it and downloads a song, you will have to pay the infringement charge if the IP address gets tracked, because of secondary liability. So basically, a cafe cannot have an open wireless network without huge liability issues or without tracking and identifying the users.

They block all Nazi related content as well. Something YouTube has been doing for quite a few years in Germany.

Packet sniffing software is just illegal. So it is a crime to flip a digital switch on your network adaptor and analyse the contents of information that is being sent to you on your LAN.

There are other strange things with censorship and how it relates to video games, but that isn't really internet related.

 

[Liberalman]

Really I have bought a bunch of music based on what I have seen and heard on Youtube. From Metallica to Diana Krall. What people don't get is that piracy is miniscule next to benefit.

So sound bites only on the radio I guess.

The music company has been screwing the Artists for a long time and now it seems they are scared.

RCS
The music company has been screwing the Artists for a long time and now it seems they are scared.

If it wasn't for the music company the artist would still be singing in a garage band. The music company makes the artist famous and for that they get a contract and own the copyrights to make it worth it. All the artist has to do is write the songs and perform it.

Downloading the music is still stealing.

Just to give you an example according to the Michael Jackson documentery in the early 1980s before the little boy fiasco he was pulling into his bank account $100 K a month and that is not counting what the music company got.

 

[Just the Facts]

Packet sniffing software is just illegal. So it is a crime to flip a digital switch on your network adaptor and analyse the contents of information that is being sent to you on your LAN.

Where'd you get that? I'd be interested in knowing more about it.

 

[Kreskin]

I don't buy music anymore. When I feel like listening to something I go to Youtube. Thank you Youtube!

 

[L Gilbert]

YouTube loses court battle over music clipsBBC News - YouTube loses court battle over music clips

Youtube and radio are probably the most common ways wife and I hear music that we want to buy. Take the vids off and that reduces our probability of buying a lot of the music.