GEMA not at fault for Youtube video blocking (Germany related)

[Compyfox]

For once, the GEMA is not to blame (which is rare), but... let's jump back a little in terms of what happened (from my point of view).

*tape spooling sound*
A couple of years ago, GEMA made a huge issue out of blocking certain music videos on YouTube. This was because YT didn't pay the GEMA in terms of distribution of music (actualy, it would count to the GVL as well - but GEMA is pretty much taking care of that globally).

Since then, users can see various music content being blocked as "this video is blocked because it might eventually hold content that, the GEMA hasn't made available in terms of distribution rights".

At first, it was only a rare occourance. Then it also hit musicians that were definitely NOT signed or released in Germany (a fellow KVRian, zircon, does count to that!), then it hit gaming videos or general contributions which used music that is "eventually" on GEMA grounds (YT simply deleted the background music, or blocked the video completely). Now it's pretty much omni-present in almost all music releases on official channels. Especially VEVO, Nuklear Records, popular chart musicians, etc.


Now here comes the twist:
On 25th February, the state court of Munich deciced in a verdict, that the barrier picture is an illegal procedure and an active diffaming towards the GEMA. According to this sentence, only 12 videos were asked to be blocked/deleted - not the content as it is today!

Read:
In reality YT blames the GEMA that they want "money" for distrubution and playback. YT doesn't want to pay that, but still uses a monetizing system, which creates a huge income (best case). On top of that, YT spends/wastes millions to actually "block" content - money that rights holder won't ever see.

SOURCE:
http://www.musikmachen.de/Musik-News/GE ... ig-3769096
https://www.gema.de/youtube


But it doesn't end at that...

Let's say you're a content creator (musician):
You write a song, so the rights are yours and you want to make that song public. YT then decides "now wait a minute, that video looks professional - are you with the GEMA by chance? - BLOCK". Especially if you didn't declare it as Creative Commons release.

You are ultimately locked out of a possible income, your (possible) German fans won't have a chance to watch your videos (legally - YT proxy's are still in depate in whether or not they are within a "grey zone") - and to blame is the GEMA (according to YT) - even if the GEMA is not to blame.

To a certain extend, the GEMA could care less with their current pricing and presentation model. At least if you create your own(!) content. The GEMA (up until this day) missed the boat in terms of "modern media". And this is all what it is about with the GEMA vs YouTube. And why the C3S got banded in the first place.





OWN THOUGHTS:

To me as audio engineer, I have my own share of problems with that. And by that, I don't mean the fact of handling ISRC codes and the likes, prior to mass production with a DDP.

But as some of you already heard, I'm working on a tutorial series. The request was to release that content on YouTube. Now, Germany is very picky already in terms of "copyrights" (with all it's bells and whistles) and very friendly in terms of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut (mass cease-and-desist orders, for vanities).

So far, the GEMA didn't get back at me regarding "rights" in terms of using audio snippets from chart productions for analysis. Maybe even a full song. Lawers were be like "get in touch with the rights holder" - which is a ton more work. And since we talk about online distribution, we'd also fall back to the GEMA/GVL.

The thing is... now if I create content that is for study/training purposes, and I somehow cleared all needed licenses for this release. YT can still be like "we don't care - block! After three times a complete channel delete." Maybe even a cease-and-desist (worst case scenario), if a company is like "wait a minute - was this even cleared?!




As it is currently, I'm not in the mood (or even dare!) to release ANYTHING in public without triple checking my own rights, adding watermarks and stuff. Germany with it's "copyright" laws (which literally change daily, we also don't have a "fair use" clause) and lawyers making a fortune out of frailties (heck, even a wrong "Impressum"/Legal Notice can bring about somebody's downfall), and may the be only very minor. YT giving a sh*t about all this, while blaming it on others. And the rest of the world being like "ya know... I can snag that content, reupload and earn money from it on top of it!".


Welcome to the digital era - where everyone should contribute.
And no matter what you do, chances are it's illegal or you're the idiot on the long run.

[Tricky-Loops]

Of course, Youtube should pay something to the GEMA as long as they're earning money with advertisements. But the GEMA is asking for way too much money, so there won't be any agreement so far. I have the impression that the GEMA is acting like a pool of sharks which are never satisfied...

And lawyers, many of them are another breed of sharks. I think of Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth with whom I had an interview for a newspaper nearly 20 years ago, he destroyed the lives of many people, including his own life...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günter_Fre ... ravenreuth

Other dubious lawyers:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Syndikus
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katja_Günther

[osiris]

I don't know. The Channel 4 player is blocked for me in the US. Also some BBC stuff.
I also know when they released Misfits here, they had to change certain songs in some episodes because they couldn't/wouldn't pay to get the US rights.
It's too messy. We need a world copyright. I'm sick of seeing Region 2 Blu rays which I can't play here, and haven't been released here.

[Tricky-Loops]

We need a world copyright.

If the whole world is copyrighted, we cannot use it anymore. Then it's better to leave. Because even if you would plant a simple salad, a lawyer would come and claim that the soil is copyrighted and you'll need to buy a license to use it...

[Compyfox]

The thing is still, even if GEMA asks for a hefty fee (which is to a certain extend more than right), YT is still actively blocking EVERYTHING that is "eventually having GEMA content".

And this is an own problem in itself, as I mentioned above.

Let's say I do create own musical content, rather than analyse GEMA related content (which would count as "teaching", though the German paragraph is a bit strict - still talking to media related lawyers about this), YT can still say "OMG, this video could have GEMA content - let's block it for certain countries". Without my agreement!

Again, this has happened several times to UK and US musicians I know and frequently visit (prime example: zirconst - which is the channel by both Zircon/Impact Soundworks on YT, and the channel of his wife Jillian Aversa).


This is a huge problem!
YT is blaming GEMA for "way too high fees", yet instead of saying "you know what... funk that - we play the videos anyway", YT is blocking the videos in the name of GEMA. Which in turn, created a sh*tstorm that went out of control and is anti-GEMA.


While I don't disregard the fact that this particular collecting society has some crazy ideas, and also produced some very bad press (Kindergarden and folk music comes to mind) in the recent years... it is in no way okay what YT is pulling here.

Ideally, no matter if you're a GEMA member or not, you should be able to upload your videos, get in touch with the society, say that you have "videos uploaded" and collect your fees after several plays. Especially if these videos are monetized/linked to commercials.

But practically... if you do that, and it's music which does sound to a certain extend "professional", or you got a certain userbase, YT blocks your videos - UNTIL you get in touch with both YT and GEMA and hope that this issue is ruled out.

You ultimately have no right on that platform.



There are always several sides to a medal. And I don't care ho pushes the Old Maid to whoom. As YT user, I'm highly frustrated. And as eventual future YT content provider, I'm more than scared off.


What we need, is no "world copyright" scheme - we need "new thinking" in the world of digital, mass multi media.

[Sendy]

I get angry when I see people uploading others' music and then slapping revenue-making adverts on the front of it. Seriously, how does that shit fly? Nobody bats an eyelid? Oh, I get it, as the curator you're more important than the artist, because you act as a filter and tastemaker? Well guess what? No creators = nothing to filter = no money for you!

[fese]

We also need to stop calling music and other forms of art "content". Music is not "content". Youtube/Google and others want you to deliver your creative output cost-free to them so they can earn heaps of money with it. That is content. It is belittling and demeaning, same as calling soccer players "Spielermaterial" (don't know an english translation, "player material"???). Hate it.

And considering how little musicians make from YT (see the Zoe Keating thread somewhere around here), i think GEMA is right wanting more money for artist here.

The general problem although is that we expect stuff on the internet to be "free".

@Compyfox: Have you considered alternative video providers like vimeo? I don't know their conditions and of course they don't have YT's market share, but it might be worth a try.

[Sendy]

Music is "content" in the way that we are "meat"

[Tricky-Loops]

So now it's alright if the GEMA wants much money from Youtube but no one thinks that Youtube could ask the artists for money, too, if they use their service?

I mean at least posting videos on Youtube is FREE! They could make (paid) subscription services like Soundcloud Premium or Spotify, too...

[fese]

I mean at least posting videos on Youtube is FREE! They could make (paid) subscription services like Soundcloud Premium or Spotify, too...

Well, we all know that it's not free. You don't pay with your money, you pay with your data. You are not a customer, you are an advertising target. Same with Facebook. The customers are the companies who buy ads. You are a "content provider", an asset. Meat.
Of course I use Youtube too, don't wanna be a hypocrite here, but deep down I don't feel comfortable with this "free" business model.

[Tricky-Loops]

If they found a subscription model like Spotify Premium, WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENTS, I'd be pretty happy about it.

Because at the moment, quality doesn't count. All what counts is how often the video is watched. So people like Mördan make some horrible "Schatz ich kann nicht mehr warten" songs, millions of people watch it to see how crappy it is and Mr. Merdan Akbulut gets his cash...

I'm desperately waiting for Youtube Premium without advertisements...

[Compyfox]

I get angry when I see people uploading others' music and then slapping revenue-making adverts on the front of it. Seriously, how does that shit fly? Nobody bats an eyelid?

This is another serious porblem that YT hasn't adressed. Or wants to adress with the auto monetizing function.

I am also furious about users "stealing" names of popular viral videos, or soon to be viral ones (the Russian climbing video comes to mind) to earn a quick buck. That or having "fake chicks" posting in your every video to draw attention/clicks. Or does anyone remember the "Response girls" that haunted YT a couple of years back? Now the response video system was taken away.

Or the most recent trend:
One science related channel posts about a topic, then one week later, another "science type" channel has the same topic, and yet another week later, DiscoveryChannel (DNews) picks up the same crap again - sans actual info.

Then again - do we see any chance for a change other than signing up ourselves and negatively commenting a video?

And considering how little musicians make from YT (see the Zoe Keating thread somewhere around here), i think GEMA is right wanting more money for artist here.

The general problem although is that we expect stuff on the internet to be "free".

I definitely don't disregard this. But there are several sides to the medal. The GEMA, while not being in constant quarrels with YT, also put way worse sh*t that can be considered as worse as the former GEZ.

The GEMA is an outdated system that asks for too much, and barely gives anything back. It's also not up to specs in terms of modern media. Here I put all my hopes into the C3S. I mean, even the GVL is restructuring itself - but why can't the GEMA do the same?

Youtube on the other hand, is only about "clicks". Their so called "content system" and how well you're awarded is really(!!!) strange. First it was "the more views, the more income" or "the more concent, etc", then it was "the longer the video, the more income", now it's back to "the shorter the video, the higher it has a chance to go viral, the better". Eh?

I don't even get the "popular" system of the main page. I only find good stuff by chance, unless I look for a specific topic. YT is being a part of Google, and I am surprised that there is not more censoring going on (actually, currently a huge uproar in the "Let's Player" community - then again, couldn't care less - they're too overprominent anyway). Or that Google/YT didn't ask for more than your private data.

If they found a subscription model like Spotify Premium, WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENTS, I'd be pretty happy about it.

Please - no!
Because then YT would benefit more than twice.
a) they get income through advertisements
b) they get income through your data
c) they get a slight share of your playback revenue (which is only logical - get famous, get a lot of clicks, users stay on YT - so Google does benefit)
d) if you have a "pay-for-no-ads" accoun, they even get money from you on top all of it rather than giving it back

Though granted, you also hear very positive stories about YT. But you have to weight in on things.


Then again, this whole thing is about the GEMA vs YT and the other way around. Which is the lesser evil - I don't know. But I'm still confused and massively scared off of that platform. Yet, it's the most frequently used one as ideal starting point for your video series. Better than streaming form your own page.

@Compyfox: Have you considered alternative video providers like vimeo? I don't know their conditions and of course they don't have YT's market share, but it might be worth a try.

To be honest, I have to recheck VIMEO's guidelines again.

But last time I took a dive on that page, certain things were not allowed. That being advertising (for a company), providing content with material that is not from yourself, then there was a quality limit. And... since I am in Germany, I still have the "copyright" issue to take into consideration.

And... YT is more frequently visited - even KVR links to YT (and sometimes Vimeo). If I want to be heard, I barely have any other choice. BUt first I need to get all legal stuff cleared.



EDIT:
Just checked Vimeo again. The rules haven't changed, and I'd actually apply as "Pro" user (since I plan my tutorial series as part of a promotion for myself), and integrating sponsors is not allowed either.

Furthermore, both Vimeo and YT are US companies. German laws are sometimes so difficult, that it doesn't make any fun to create "content" without taking a risk to be sued in some form.

[Nokenoku]

For once, the GEMA is not to blame (which is rare), ...

Yes, they are.

In most other civilized countries Youtube already has contracts with the Rechteverwertern.
But the GEMA is making very unrealistic proposals, so there is no agreement with Youtube.

Youtube wants to make a deal on a percent-basis of the actual ad-income (which makes sense and is fair).
GEMA wants to get a fixed amount PER click (also this amount was rather high, if I remember right), which would be very dangerous for Youtube and might even generate loss rather than win.

On 25th February, the state court of Munich deciced in a verdict, that the barrier picture is an illegal procedure and an active diffaming towards the GEMA. According to this sentence, only 12 videos were asked to be blocked/deleted - not the content as it is today!

The view of this court is pretty much idiotic.

12 videos were used for a leading case.
Also other courts (BGH or something like that ... can't remember) said, that providers like Youtube have to actively search and remove/block copyrighted material.
That's why Youtube had to install his overeager automatic filter-system, which rather gives a wrong positive.

They HAVE to block those videos, because there is no agreement with the GEMA.
So it is indeed true, if the text says:
"This video is blocked, because GEMA didn't provide us the rights to this music."
There is absolutely nothing wrong or misleading about that.

In reality YT blames the GEMA that they want "money" for distrubution and playback. YT doesn't want to pay that, but still uses a monetizing system, which creates a huge income (best case).

Well ... and that's just the bullshit-GEMA-propaganda. Youtube should actually sue them for those lies.

Youtube never "blamed" anyone for wanting to earn money with their work.
They just don't agree on the made proposals.

[Tricky-Loops]

What GEMA really wants:

[Nokenoku]

Also let me add:

I don't know about that Zircon case, but depending on under which label he sells his music, his rights might automatically be managed by the GEMA in Germany (this is one of the big mistakes of this whole concept).

Also there is something called "GEMA Vermutung", which means that you have to PROVE, that you are not playing GEMA-music. If you can't prove that, you have to pay the GEMA.

But that's not the fault of Youtube, but of the dubious business the GEMA is doing in the background.
If for example you do a concert and play some music, you have to PROVE, that none of the artists, who did this music, are in the GEMA. Otherwise you HAVE to pay for every single track, where you can't prove it.
Also some artists might use aliases like "Zircon". But who is Zircon? Can you prove, he is not "Karl Meier", who is a GEMA-member?
If not, you have to pay (or in case of Youtube: block).

Youtube has no time to check every single artist they discover, so they rather block than being sued afterwards.


Oh ... and in case, you wonder:
"Ok, but who gets this money, if nobody knows, who did the music?"
The answer is:
It's distributed very unfairly based on how many radio play artists get and if you are a "ordentliches GEMA Mitglied".

So in the end, Dieter Bohlen and Co are getting the money, if for example a club plays underground-electro, where they can't prove for every god damn single artists, that those are not GEMA-members.