homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.123.2
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 ( [1] 2 > >     
YouTube Could Face Massive Royalty Bill In Germany
engine




msg:4443401
 2:07 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

YouTube Could Face Massive Royalty Bill In Germany [zdnet.com]
A German court ruled today that Google-owned YouTube is solely responsible for the content that users upload and post on the video-sharing website, a decision that could have massive implications for the company.
YouTube could be forced to pay royalties to those whose music copyright was infringed upon. It was also ordered to install word-based filters to bolster its existing filtering system to prevent further infringement of copyrighted work.
YouTube said during the case that it should not be held responsible for the content its users upload. YouTube said it has state-of-the-art copyright filters which detect and remove infringing content from the site. It also warns users that they are infringing copyright. It said during earlier proceedings that it blocks content when users and rights holders alert the company over infringing content.

Millions of music videos could be affected, and Google could ultimately end up having to fork out vast sums back to the music industry as a result of this landmark case.

 

Gibble




msg:4443428
 3:07 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

"word-based" filters? really... that's going to bolster their current copyright filters?

gmb21




msg:4443436
 3:25 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

A court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube is responsible for the content that users post


Kind of reminds me of the AdSense rules -- "you are responsible for what users post on your site"...

skunker




msg:4443445
 4:01 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

But, Google makes money providing a service that lets people upload content to the site....

Marshall




msg:4443446
 4:03 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

Can you say Napster?

Marshall

lexipixel




msg:4443527
 6:56 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

The filters also catch digital audio, (no "words" needed in any part of the upload file name, description or other textual signals).

I uploaded a video of my daughter participating in a dance recital - I got an alert from YouTube that the video contained copyright material -- it had detected the digitally encoded background music, flagged it and blocked the video from being viewed.

Aoe2913




msg:4443543
 8:05 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

Youtube has much bigger problems than this, it's called very explicit p0$r~n posted all over their service (with a lot of views). And may I add, shouldn't be too hard for a multi-million dollar algorithm and 3 full time employees to detect.

Kind of reminds me of the AdSense rules -- "you are responsible for what users post on your site"...

But, Google makes money providing a service that lets people upload content to the site....

The best part is if any of this explicit content lands on your site somehow. You get the picture.

[edited by: engine at 10:01 am (utc) on Apr 21, 2012]
[edit reason] No sig files, thanks [/edit]

zeus




msg:4443544
 8:05 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

but the content upload is it on a german server

cwnet




msg:4443549
 8:17 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

The court in question is the one of the state of Hamburg. The next step is one of the parties takes the case to the next (federal) level, both parties accept the ruling or they settle the case out of court.

At the core of the case is that GEMA (the institution representing the IP rights of content creators (in this case music) and Google have been unable to come to an agreement about royalties (GEMA wants more than Google is willing to pay).

Of note is that there is no dispute that Google/YouTube has to pay royalties in order to compensate artists - and Google did so until (if memory serves me right) 2009.

My take is: If YouTube/Google cannot provide the service because royalty fees would be higher than revenues from advertisement, than Google does not have a viable business model and should just close the service.

I hope this is only the beginning and other content creators find a way to charge Google for using their content.

E.G. I would like to be able to charge Google a small fee every time a Google Search Engine user clicks on a link to my website. Right now, Google uses MY content to attract visitors to Google (and running advertisement against it) without compensating me.

Alternative, Google could pay me for the privileg of indexing MY content with their robots.

And, before somebody throws the robots.txt argument at me, please note that my website goes behind a paywall next month, effectively forbidding Google to access MY content.

zeus




msg:4443563
 9:33 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

Im one googles site, the user who upload is the one to go after, how should they be able to check 100%, the music industry is just going after the easy money nothing els and google has money. If I was google I would remove all music sites from there index, its still there business, they can do what they want.

Demaestro




msg:4443574
 10:09 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

Simple solution for Youtube....

Step 1) Youtube sets up a block for all visitors from countries who have these rulings.

Step 2) Youtube releases press releases saying that the threat of being sued is too risky to justify providing services.

Step 3) Citizens of said countries lose their minds over losing access to Youtube.

Many Citizens will demand the country/courts update their laws to allow Youtube to safely provide services to those countries.

Either The countries will change their position or they won't but Youtube/Google needs to stop trying to convince these governing bodies to their way of thinking and let the citizens of those countries make the argument for them.

It isn't up to Youtube to change a countries policies, it is up to the country's citizens to do that. Losing access to things like Youtube and Google images will be enough to get them going.

[edited by: Demaestro at 10:11 pm (utc) on Apr 20, 2012]

incrediBILL




msg:4443575
 10:10 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

It's about time Google's flippant approach to copyright gets them a slap in the face. However, Google didn't create YouTube, someone else did and Google just bought it after the fact so in reality they're still paying for the mess made by it's creators. Not like Google would've done anything differently, but it's still important to remember it was an acquisition.

Web_speed




msg:4443576
 10:11 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

Good one. Let G have it and hopefully go the Napster way, and the sooner the better for us all, me say.

Almost their entire business model is based on nothing but web spam, privacy abuse, copyrights infringements and plagiarism. Its about time the government's "spam team" give them the flick.

They've been inflicting so much damage on so many businesses in the last few years. It is good to see them have a bit of their own medicine.

zeus




msg:4443579
 10:19 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

privacy, book copying.... is of cause a bad thing, but this is not about that, still on google site here, the user knows what they upload, it can not be googles job to check every video.

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4443593
 11:21 pm on Apr 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

I think the ruling is just because ultimately whatever is shown on a domain MUST BE the responsibility of the domain owner.

Google needs to moderate videos before they go live or face the consequences if they don't do so. Expecting people to do it themselves is a BAD idea on two fronts.

#1 - people aren't versed in the law
#2 - It allows Google to gather personal information in the guise of 'coming after you if you violate law on our site'.

Google needs to police their own products themselves.

JAB Creations




msg:4443610
 12:44 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)

Crapastic reporting. The court was German because it was in Germany (still only implied) though who were the people besides Google and GEMA? This case will clearly be overturned and only shows that dinosaurs still have influence in the court systems. Publishers are simply man-in-the-middle leeches who refuse to acknowledge that we have entered in to an age where they and their unconstrained wild and completely out-of-control greed are obsolete.

- John

shri




msg:4443649
 5:20 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)

>> I think the ruling is just because ultimately whatever is shown on a domain MUST BE the responsibility of the domain owner.

With lots of limitations.

Is AT&T responsible for every conversation conducted over its wires?

Is Craigslist responsible for every ad posted on its domains?

Are you responsible for any and all links / content posted on your wordpress blog by visitors?

Is Facebook posted and liable for all conversations on its groups, fan pages etc?

stever




msg:4443653
 5:51 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)

Is AT&T responsible for every conversation conducted over its wires?

No
Is Craigslist responsible for every ad posted on its domains?

Of course
Are you responsible for any and all links / content posted on your wordpress blog by visitors?

Of course
Is Facebook posted and liable for all conversations on its groups, fan pages etc?

Of course

This argument is about the concept of publication, where the act of publication to a third party makes money for the publisher in some way (or not), no matter how much some website owners may wish to have a free pass from laws governing other areas of our life. (Copyright, libel, stalking, privacy, race hate, sexual discrimination, to name just a few.)

incrediBILL




msg:4443666
 7:07 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)

@Sgt_Kickaxe you forgot ...

#3 - people simply don't care and want to do whatever they want to do and use false information to perpetrate acts where they know they would get in trouble and attempt to hide their identity.

londrum




msg:4443688
 9:52 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)

i read in some comments once, under a video, that you can bypass the filters by reversing the image.
it was one of those hitler spoof videos, where hitler is raging against silly things like britney spears. the spoofs use a mirror image of the movie. apparently the filters cant pick that up.
so its not very sophisticated

Seb7




msg:4443905
 10:28 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

Hosting someone elses video content is always going to be risky business, and with Google now being the owner makes it a big target.

Whos responsible for the content is tricky. Why should google be treated any differently to metaupload.

Censoring video is difficult. Google can do more to please these countries, and if thats not enough, then (I do like Demaestro thinking, and) dont let these countries access youtube.

thecoalman




msg:4443965
 5:24 pm on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

It's about time Google's flippant approach to copyright gets them a slap in the face. However, Google didn't create YouTube, someone else did and Google just bought it after the fact so in reality they're still paying for the mess made by it's creators. Not like Google would've done anything differently, but it's still important to remember it was an acquisition.


Incredibill, have the other moderators determined that what you have posted here was not cut and pasted from a copyrighted source to insure that WW couldn't be held liable? ;)

While I can understand content owners having some major issues with youtube the alternative of making the site owner responsible is a very slippery and dangerous slope. If youtube can be held responsible for what their users have uploaded any other site on the internet can be held responsible including this one.

scooterdude




msg:4443983
 6:39 pm on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

Well these are matters that brick and mortar traditional business are obliged to deal with regularly.

If you invest $10m on a TV production, its probably quite upsetting to find everyone accessing it free online and another major corp slapping adds on it that you don't get a bean for.

Anyone here offering their content up for a good scraping ?

loner




msg:4444114
 6:41 am on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

If youtube can be held responsible for what their users have uploaded any other site on the internet can be held responsible including this one.


Yes- you are correct. However, I don't see this site as having an issue with that problem. I'm certain it would be taken care of if there were. If your model can't support legal operation, then it shouldn't be in operation. No sympathy for scrapers.

seoskunk




msg:4444414
 10:16 pm on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I don't think youtube will ever make a profit. Its like a huge white elephant in that department but its also a fantastic site. Be a shame to see lawyers destroy it.

thecoalman




msg:4444785
 7:03 pm on Apr 24, 2012 (gmt 0)


Well these are matters that brick and mortar traditional business are obliged to deal with regularly.


So if I go to my local super market and post something illegal on their bulletin board they are going to be responsible?

[edited by: thecoalman at 7:11 pm (utc) on Apr 24, 2012]

thecoalman




msg:4444788
 7:11 pm on Apr 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

I don't see this site as having an issue with that problem. I'm certain it would be taken care of if there were.


They couldn't possibly monitor all the content for copyright, just isn't going to happen and it would only take one instance for them to be sued. They would have to put everything in moderation queue which would be a huge inconvenience for the user. Is the site even more responsible if they approved it?

What about all these smaller and hobby sites?

How about another angle, I don't like the owner of example.com so I post some material on that site that is copyright troll bait?

scooterdude




msg:4444790
 7:35 pm on Apr 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Compliance with the law is not optional for individuals or corporates in Either Europe or USA

np2003




msg:4444992
 4:18 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

7/10 videos on YouTube are stolen content.

loner




msg:4445062
 8:17 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

In my opinion, it is up to the site owner to verify to legal standards, exactly who is uploading any content. Youtube is turning a blind eye to this ambiguity, profiting from it and should be held responsible. If they can't, or are unwilling to do this, then either they should pay royalties and punitive damages as directed or cease operations.

It is my understanding that the reason we have copyright laws and statutes in the first place is for the originator of creative works to ensure and maintain their right to control and profit from their work.

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved