GEMA Strikes Again: Demands Licensing Fees For Music It Has No Rights To

from the copyfraud dept

What is it that we often hear from supporters of stricter copyright laws? Oh yeah... it's something along the lines of "no one should be able to profit off the work of someone else without the proper rights." So I'm curious if those folks will equally condemn German collection society GEMA for trying to collect licensing fees for some music that was released under a Creative Commons license and by artists who are not currently GEMA members (some left in disgust).

This isn't new, of course. Two and a half years ago, we wrote about GEMA refusing to recognize Creative Commons licenses from Jamendo, and insisting that people still had to pay them. Similarly, in this case, even after it's been pointed out to them that the tracks were not under GEMA's purview, the organization insisted that the artists probably just "forgot to register the tracks," and asked the producers of the album to provide more proof that the songs weren't covered. Talk about entitlement.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 5:45am

    GEMA collects money for the people they represent, and now demand that people who want nothing to do with them prove they never signed up with GEMA.

    Given how the law works for common people, your always assumed to be infringing when there is any chance, I think we need to apply this metric to GEMA. GEMA is claiming rights to works they do not have, it might be time to seize all GEMA operations and check every single piece of music they claim the rights to and for each nickel they have taken for works they do not represent they need to be fined $150,000 minimum. As these nickels were taken solely to profit GEMA, they did not represent those artists so had no real intention to pay them, then we should increase those fines to treble that amount.

    Copyright is so important to force on everyone else, maybe if they were hoisted by their own demands and treated like common folks they might start to get a clue. I doubt they will get a clue, but I think the financial hit would make them more careful in their dealings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 5:46am

    I sense an opportunity here to create a blackbox for venues that play songs that are not covered by any collection agency, the guy who build an electronic recorder for microphones and speakers could get rich.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 5:53am

    Better yet make a system that records every sound played on the store equipment and that uses audio watermarks so if a collection agency has a record of the audio without the watermark they would be lying thieves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 6:03am

    This also reminds me of another problem with copyright.
    The way things are going I need to keep the receipts of every CD, DVD, cable service or whatever I listen or watch or risk being accused of piracy, maybe it is just easy to never watch anything from those people because doing so it is getting risky.

    Didn't they just passed a law in the US in California(I think) allowing the police to search things without a court order if they suspect piracy?

    God forbid you get caught with a DVD you don't have a receipt that you will need to keep for 125 years or more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Bergman (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:36pm

      Re:

      And it's worse than that. Receipts aren't particularly durable in an archival sense, and ones printed on thermal paper are particularly short lived. Less than ten years after printing, most thermally-printed receipts will be faded to the point of being blank paper.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 6:29am

    Laws that imposed very stiff penalties for false claim of copyright would go a long way toward fixing this and other problems.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Bergman (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:46pm

      Re:

      Laws that do so already exist. They just aren't being enforced.

      It is already illegal to attempt to enrich oneself by means of fraud. If the fraud includes an "or else" threat if the victim doesn't pay up, it is also coercion/extortion. Given the amounts demanded for "settlements" by copyright trolls, the matter is definitely on the felony end of the spectrum.

      Any organization that exists primarily to carry out criminal activity, or which does so routinely as a matter of organizational policy is subject (at least in the U.S.) to the RICO Act. I wonder if Germany has any equivalent laws in place?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 6:42am

    So everyone should be able to profit off work of others /without/ right.

    Logical reverse of your strawman:
    '"no one should be able to profit off the work of someone else without the proper rights."'

    You start the week by cutting out the nuanced reasonable middle ground, Pirate Mike, even implying it doesn't exist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:00am

      Re: So everyone should be able to profit off work of others /without/ right.

      This is the landscape we have, that there are rights on songs for the composer, writer, performer. While GEMA claims to exist to protect those interests they are in fact committing fraud by claiming to represent those who are not interested in GEMA membership. When challenged that they do not have these rights, something they should be able to verify easily, they instead put the burden on the artist or the people targeted to prove that GEMA has no right to the rights in question.

      GEMA believes in stronger copyrights and they believe in them so strongly they make them up to support their business model.

      While I can read and reread Mike's opening sentence for you, I can not understand it for you.

      GEMA is breaking the law they claim to hold so dear, which could be seen as them being interested in the law only when it benefits them. And when they can't legally benefit, they just pretend that they still can.

      This is fraud plain and simple. GEMA screams they need more laws, but they can't be bothered to follow the law they have now.

      There is no strawman here, the people in charge of minding the rights, who claim losses and demand more protection violate the letter and spirit of the law to line their own pockets. One might even call them pirates, except people who pirate content usually do not profit from it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:01am

      Re: So everyone should be able to profit off work of others /without/ right.

      Since when were you concerned with a "nuanced reasonable middle ground", son?

      Claiming copyrights you don't have is called "copyfraud".
      And it's far more prevalent than most people think.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rich, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 9:04am

      Re: So everyone should be able to profit off work of others /without/ right.

      Are you still here? I was hoping you'd take your moral outrage elsewhere.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 9:56am

      Re: So everyone should be able to profit off work of others /without/ right.

      Nice binary thinking. No, not Mike. You.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 6:48am

    Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

    Reversing of your title:
    "GEMA Strikes Again: Demands Licensing Fees For Music It Has No Rights To"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:05am

      Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

      So, you're not even going to pretend this is defensible, but you just have to try attacking Mike anyway, with multiple spammy posts no less? Pretty pathetic.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        iamtheky (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:13am

        Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

        ootb and lacking of substance are two very joined parties.

        and commenting on the length of posts is what he does right before he puts them in his mouth...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:21am

        Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

        @"PaulT": No, I'm "not even going to pretend this is defensible"! -- NEITHER am I going to allow Mike to remain silent when freetards post here without Mike "equally" condemning them for THEFT. Not a subtle point.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:38am

          Re: Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

          "NEITHER am I going to allow Mike to remain silent when freetards post here without Mike "equally" condemning them for THEFT"

          Well, since no theft is actually taking place by these "freetards", you WILL have to remain silent. Because Mike can't condemn something that isn't going on. However, if Mike felt like condemning people for committing COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, which file sharing would fall under (in accordance with the law, which I can reasonably assume you follow and approve of by your comments and thus should acknowledge the distinction made by the Supreme Court in the Dowling v United States (1985) case)I'd have no problem with that.

          File sharing = Copyright Infringement (NOT THEFT/STEALING)

          No matter how many times you or others says the word "stealing" or "theft", it still does not make it so. Thus, you are wrong and spreading verifiable and factually incorrect information. Quit adding fuel to the fire that is rapidly becoming the decline of intelligence in society.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Chosen Reject (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 10:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

            On the flip side (and you really should have pointed this out) GEMA is actually is taking something away from someone. File sharing only makes a copy, whereas what GEMA is doing is unlawful taking. So GEMA is much closer to theft than a file sharer.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Bergman (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

              Exactly. GEMA is actually taking legal ownership of someone else's property rights. That actually IS copyright theft, not infringement.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

            WRONG! Not all file sharing is copyright infringement.

            Copyright holders often use bittorrent to get their works out without straining their servers/bandwidth.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Bergman (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

              This. Very much this. A friend of mine wrote a computer game some years back. He didn't do it for profit and made none. He used bit torrent to distribute the game.

              Yes, people who downloaded it and shared it on copied it. But it wasn't illegal, because they had the permission of the owner to do so.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 8:12am

          Re: Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

          Sorry, I forgot for a moment and thought I was addressing an adult capable of recognising the complexities of the issues at hand. My mistake.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Bergman (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:51pm

          Re: Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

          Theft? So you mean to claim that after someone pirates a song, every other copy of that song in existence, everywhere in the world, vanishes into thin air?

          Infringement isn't theft, since theft requires the removal of something from the owner's control. Unauthorized copying does nothing to the owner's own copy, nor does it necessarily follow that the infringer would have paid for the song if piracy wasn't an option. Unless the money is actually in the owner's hand, no theft has occurred there either.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

      Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

      Let me get this straight, you are saying that 'Creative Commons licenses do not confer the rights needed to share the music that as been licensed under them', correct?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 4:09pm

        Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

        Damn wouldn't that be a headache.

        You put your work under a CC license so people can share it only to find that it doesn't? That'd be RAGE inducing all around.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Bergman (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: Freetards Demand /Music/ They Have No Rights To

          And adding injury to insult would be the discovery that someone else is raking in cash for your works, despite the fact you have no business relationship with that other someone, and you won't ever see a penny of the money without a costly lawsuit you might not be able to afford to bring.

          Yay GEMA!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 6:57am

    Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

    Since your tactic here is to try to get some agreement on GEMA and thereby divide the opposition, I'll just reverse that on you too, and demand that you condemn those who here say they're just sheerly going to steal if not given.

    3 posts because you managed to get so MUCH wrong in a short piece.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:25am

      Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

      Ey, look, we have a right old thief here! He's stealing from our collective intelligence!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 8:38am

        Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

        @ "eejit": "Ey, look, we have a right old thief here! He's stealing from our collective intelligence!"

        And you, as self-declared "eejit", are most worried because don't have any to spare.

        See, I can do empty invective too.

        I always wonder about people who choose handles with negative implications. Perhaps it's a compulsive honesty.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 8:41am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

          Hey, at least I'm honest about it.

          By the way, now that ACTA's been signed, does that mean that GEMA's site can be seized without recourse and they get fined $100bil?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:25am

      Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

      I thought if he kept posting stories like this you would go away. When will that be happening?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 8:51am

        Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

        @ "aguywhoneedstenbucks": "I thought if he kept posting stories like this you would go away. When will that be happening?"

        When I choose. Right now, it's regulars who are leaving or posting less.

        It's not me or those who disagree with Mike who cause them to drift away, it's that Mike's views are neither weighty nor consistent nor workable in practice. In fact, he has little except complaints and ranting. We are still waiting in his "can't compete with free" piece for exactly how he recovers "sunk (or fixed) costs".

        Meanwhile, the "copyright maximalists" are moving right along. I wish they weren't, and I advocate, in brief, tax 'em out of existence. It's the only effective tool against moneyed interests.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 10:00am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

          And thus do you continue the ad hominem attacks while trying to pretend that you represent a thoughtful, balanced view.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 12:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

            Why at this rate, he could almost stand a chance to get elected to congress!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              The eejit (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 12:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

              Actually....

              Congress would get rid of him for not lying enough.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Any Mouse (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 10:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

          Right now, it's regulars who are leaving or posting less.

          Not buying it. Don't see it, and don't see how you could ever prove such a thing. There are more regulars posting more regularly than ever from my perspective.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Gwiz (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 1:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

            I agree.

            I think Blue is seeing less replies to HIS comments and therefore thinks it means less regulars around. The truth is more along the lines of less replies to his comments because most are realizing that arguing with crazy is a wasted effort.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 10:22am

      Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

      I'm looking at this story, and considering what you have to say, and the only group that I see doing anything that can be described as stealing is GEMA, not the filesharers. Filesharers make copies, leaving the owner with his copy. GEMA demands money unlawfully, leaving the owner with less. Neither group is being lawful, both groups are acquiring something without permission, but only one group leaves the affected party with less, and that is GEMA, and that is much more closely called theft or stealing than making a copy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Goyo, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 11:34am

      Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

      Are you talking to the same Pirate Mike who's been saying "Piracy is not OK" for ages?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Bergman (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 8:01pm

        Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?

        Shhh. He hasn't noticed his own idiocy in that regard yet. Don't crush his fragile ego, he's far too entertaining to lose!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    martin, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 6:57am

    2 Cents from me:

    - I Germany, the GEMA traditionally was THE collecting agency, so the laws are such that you have to prove that music is not from a member. The case here was simply a sampler where some artists did not want to provide a real name, instead using a pseudonym. GEMA just demands real names and adresses to check up that no artist is a member, since you can be in or out, but not have only some of your work with them. So the flaw is the law, not the organization (although they deserve a slapping nonetheless IMO)

    - Those who say "hey lets have a bar that plays only free music" should just think twice - it's in the owner's responsibility that way to keep track of who plays whom's songs. If some artist claims to play free music and it's the work of some other artisst, the bar owner is still the first to have to pay up. If it is not something like jamendos library, the effort a bartender would have to put in this will never be saved by not having to pay GEMA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:26am

      Re:

      Well then the law making giving GEMA a monopoly on these sorts of things is quite insane.
      Why would anyone vote for a law where an artist is forced to turn over any of the rights to their work to someone they do not want to? Why are the artists not allowed to have choices? Especially considering how easy it is to get music out there to get more fans this seems like something to try and make sure that German artists and Germany are kept in the dark ages of music discovery.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 8:25am

        Re: Re:

        Actually, the "monopoly" is a good thing, for a bunch of reasons. The most important is net costs:

        All in systems get rid of many of the problems of trying to figure out who is responsible. When you are talking about collecting what is often "micropayments" for each artist, any cost of overhead would use up that payment and make the system fail. If it costs you $1 to collect $0.25, the system would have to increate rates 5 fold to keep up. But when it costs you only a penny or two to collect the 25 cents, you have a system that is functional for all.

        GEMA has ways to opt out, all that is needed is proof that the material isn't covered. How hard is that to understand? It's beyond Mike's grasp, what about you?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 8:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Find the form to opt-out, then. Seeing as it's so simple.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            The eejit (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 8:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            A corollary to this - Google can't find a form to opt-out, and there is no direct link from their English website. Now, i don't know about you, but that seems pretty damned odd to me.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 10:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The original commenter said the artists don't have a right to have some of their work not covered by GEMA.

          And I think getting $70 a track is hardly a micropayment, the CD of free music had 5 tracks and GEMA sent a bill for $350. The artists had already signed off they were uninvolved with GEMA or any other agency like them, but that is not good enough for GEMA. One wonders how much of the $70 went to the artists... there you could be right about it being $0.25 a track.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 7:26am

      Re:

      So, basically, GEMA are economy-sucking parasites that have nothing to do with actually making music?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    deane (profile), Oct 10th, 2011 @ 8:15am

    well good that GEMA is in for another smack down. GEMA is now the, and I use the term loosely; "PIRATE". if on one hand you wish to use the following terms to describe all the parties that do digital infringement, namely "freetards", Pirates, thieves, theft, or others; then when a person puts out something and the collective "industry" decides to do the same then THEY MUST be called the same things! GEMA saying they OWN something that they don't is committing all the things they are accusing others of! >.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    jimbo, Oct 10th, 2011 @ 9:02am

    how about GEMA providing proof that they ARE entitled to the fees, preferably in court!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 12:17am

    Fuck GEMA!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Db0, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 11:49am

    Fuck GEMA

    Ever since I moved to Germany, I've learned to loathe GEMA with a passion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John, Sep 10th, 2012 @ 8:16am

    Why don't "we" do something about this crap?

    I am getting so sick of this shite. From "TV licenses" in Europe, to GEMA to geoblocking on the internet to satellite intended to do no more than restrict satellite audiences to match over-the-air broadcasts. These selfish luddite gobshites need to be stopped or at best bypassed in such a way to render *all* of their attempts useless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Disco Stu, Dec 5th, 2012 @ 3:09pm

    Typical Germans

    Typical German behaviour. See something they want then indiscriminately try to take it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This