Youtube Loses Lawsuit

[DerVVulfman]

Okay, guys. Youtube got into trouble. In Germany, musicians collectively sued Youtube for their copyrighted work being shown without permission. And Youtube lost

Click (>HERE!<)

Here's a copy from the site (above) this was announced:

According to a court in Hamburg, Germany, YouTube needs to take responsibility for its content. A German royalty collection group named Gema filed a lawsuit against the Google-owned video sharing site. Gema claimed that the website must take action to block the sharing of copyrighted videos. The court ruled in Gema's favor on seven copyrighted videos from various musical artists. It remains to be seen whether Gema will collect lost royalties as a result of the court ruling.

Despite its loss in court, the popular video site released the following statement through a spokesperson, "Today's ruling confirms that YouTube as a hosting platform cannot be obliged to control the content of all videos uploaded to the site." This statement seems misplaced considering the court actually ruled against them, not for them. It's just another sign of their refusal to admit responsibility for the actions of its users. It's about time that they began the laborious task of ridding the site of its vast library of copyright violations. Unfortunately, that task seems nearly impossible, and it would ultimately make the site less profitable and less interesting.

YouTube could ultimately have to pay for all the copyrighted clips its users have posted on the website. That would be financially devastating for parent company Google. The ruling could also force them to clear each music clip for copyright before adding it to the site. That would dramatically slow down the rapid rate at which videos are now added to the site. If Gema and an obscure German court have their way, the Internet is about to become a lot less exciting.

[MetalRenard]

It's ridiculous. Youtube has measures in place to protect against that kind of thing, and acts when asked.
They should NOT be held responsible for what their users upload considering they have measures in place to help prevent it.
GAH!

[DerVVulfman]

I'm pretty sure that MegaUpload said they posted they're not responsible for what other stored in their filesharing systems and that they'd happily remove copyrighted material if asked.

[KasperKalamity]

maybe this is the very beginning of the 2012 civil war that John Titor warned us about...

[MetalRenard]

Olivia, the issue isn't piracy. The issue is that these massive publishing companies such as the American film Association or whatever need to revise their business model.

They rely on a model that was created many many years ago, and refuse time after time to adapt. If, for example, they made their shows available online, they could easily make up the same kind of money they make from putting them on TV, just by putting adverts in them. But Nooo! They refuse to do that, instead blocking anyone outside the US from viewing American shows based on their IP. It doesn't take a lot of work to add a couple of 1 minute ads to a video, and I'm sure people would prefer that than facing the risks of piracy.

They should also realise that many people go to the cinema less because the prices are increasing exponentially (at least in Europe). it cost me £8 to go the other day. That's a ridiculous amount. I'd much rather wait for a DVD or a way to stream it online (that I'd be happy to pay for).

The same goes for music. They need to realise that people listen to most of their music while sitting at their computer, so rather than bitching, they should try and communicate with their listeners. You want music for free online? Sure! We can do that, all you have to do is listen to an advert every 10 minutes (which you do on Youtube anyway), and only at the beginning of videos.

It goes both ways, I admit, piracy is a form of laziness - "I can't be bothered to watch an advert so I'll find it elsewhere" is a BAD thing. People also need to wake up to this and be responsible consumers, but at the same time, these big companies need to allow us to be.

Thats my view on the matter.

[yamina-chan]

Yeah, I've heard about this. Our "friend" the Gema is on it's way. Again.

You have no idea how often we see their resolute stop for videos << It really is annoying and people have tried all sorts of ways to get around it; those who share the videos and those who want to see them alike. Even some artists are pissed about it since really: YouTube videos can help to promote groups and their music. I've bought so many albums or songs that I would never have found out about otherwise. Some of my favorite groups I discovered trough stumbling across one of their songs online.

Hell, Die Ärzte uploaded their entire new Album when it was released to YouTube and said they wanted to give as many people as possible the opportunity to listen to their songs. And guess what? Despite this (or because? Probably both) the Album is currently on top of the charts AND people go out and keep buying it. Because they also do something else. They always make their Albums something special. This time, it's a fully functional (and hilarious, if silly XD) board game. Take a look: http://www.br.de/radio/bayern3/inhalt/mu...ch102.html
(The music is great of course as well XD)

Of course, I realize this won't work for everyone but I think it is the right idea. If something is good, people usually want it to have them self. And many people do look up many things in YouTube. It's rather a matter of how to use this as an advantage instead of blocking it up. It's great advertising, theoretically.


Yes, people do listen to things there without buying it eventually or download it for their use. I have done so as well. (Usually with things that are impossible to be bought here, but that's beside the point.) Copying music or any content has always been a problem, it you want to look at it in the pessimistic way. You can always get the CD and record it to a cassette. Same result. Or what about recording a movie/ on TV on a VHS? I've lost count on how many video tapes I filled regularly a few years back. It amounts to the same, really.

With the wide use of the internet, certain things have become more easy. It changes a lot of things and people, consumers and those who try to sell ...whatever. Let's stay with music - have to learn to use it wisely.

Stopping and threatening something because it's new, changes things and can't really be controlled is definitely the wrong thing to do. Do what die Ärzte did. Go find a solution that will help both sides. Don't try to take away freedom, it'll make you more enemies instead. (Hello, Gema. You do realize that all the German YouTube users have been hating you for a long time now, do you?) Go be creative, go and strive to be better then the rest, go find the answer to this puzzle, go live by the ICDC but don't be a Copyrightnazi. (<- Heard the Nostalgia Critic use this word and I love it XD Tough it's technically wrong. But you get the idea.)

Edit: Since MetalRenard sneaked in a post while I was typing: to that which you said, I fully agree. (I was trying to say basically the same, not sure if it worked as well XD)
Edit2: WTF? What happened to the formating? XD I didn't want this to look like a poem or something XD' But aparently I can't change it...for some unknown reason so bear with me
MetalRenard Edit: I fixed your formating.

[DerVVulfman]

But on the Devil's Advocate side, musicians may make next to nothing if...
1) You can garner their work for free and
2) The music companies, losing money due to freely garnered music, cannot pay for the artists or royalties.

You cannot say that the industry needs to adapt to free or relatively free downloads of the copyrighted material.

A parallel: YOU are the owner of a grocery store. You try to make money on merchandise you sell. Then someone walks in and takes your goods and gives it away on the street without paying. You may not agree with this, but it is exactly the same thing.

Youtube may have advertisements and all, but if the music industry or the like are unaware of their media being posted, they are not receiving anything from the hits.

[MetalRenard]

You misunderstood me too, Dervv.
I said they should find OTHER sources of revenue where the classic ones fail. People have a lot of time, but not so much money. On the other hand, corporations have money, but not time. Therefore, average Joe would trade thirty seconds of his time to listen to a 5 minute long piece of music.
That thirty second advert makes the video owner $2 to $3 per 1000 views. That's a lot of money.

Also, don't think I haven't thoroughly thought this through. Don't forget I am affected by this too since I am a composer and music producer.

[DerVVulfman]

If the industry wished to find another source of revenue for their goods, it still wouldn't make any difference if their goods are being given away for free through online sources such as Youtube. You say the industry should change, but no business that has any form of goods can make money when their merchandise is being stolen.

Asking an industry to change because a thief is stealing their merchandise and giving it away will not work. And regardless of Youtube or other sites charging advertisements, if the creators or producers of the work are not aware, they are not garnering any funds.

Many times, it isn't a business posting this material on youtube, but private individuals. Are they telling the industry what they are posting? Chances are... no. So even if a business is releasing an official video that does have advertisements, there are likely dozens freely posted without their knowledge that is making them lose money. Okay, perhaps not 'losing' money... but money that is not properly owed to the creators or producers of the copyrighted material.

Repeating my parallel...

A parallel: YOU are the owner of a grocery store. You try to make money on merchandise you sell. Then someone walks in and takes your goods and gives it away on the street without paying. You may not agree with this, but it is exactly the same thing.

It's a simple matter of theft.

[KasperKalamity]

i dont think stealing is stealing unless i was going to pay for it in the first place... being broke is totally different from having the money to buy something, but not paying for it anyway