In various discussions about the music industry, we're often told that the so-called Performance Rights Organizations (PROs) are "looking out for artists' interests." In practice, that's not always the case. In the US, for example, we've talked about how PROs have harmed up and coming musicians by jacking up prices so high that many venues that used to be the starting place for new musicians no longer allow any music. Similarly, there are plenty of stories showing how they often collect money that should go to smaller artists, but deliver it to big name artists instead, because it's too difficult to track how much they should be paying smaller artists.

A press release from an organization called Music Licensing Directory -- which may be biased, so take this with a grain of salt -- is highlighting that 40% of the PROs it tracks engage in "retitling" tracks for the purpose of licensing. Basically, the accusation is that the PROs change the title, so that they still collect the royalties, but since the songs can't be easily connected back to the original artist, that artist doesn't get paid.

“We have analyzed over 1500 music licensing companies globally, allowing for an accurate assessment of the market place and providing valued insight for artists and the industry.” said Winston Giles, CEO & Founder of The Music Licensing Directory.

The new report highlights that whilst the Music Licensing Industry continues to grow as a multi-billion dollar segment of the global music industry, there remains some unhealthy practices, most notably the prolific practice of retitling. Retitling is where a music licensing company re-registers a song under a different title with a performing rights organization (PRO), allowing for the royalties to be separately tracked when that song is licensed for a specific third party use. This allows the music licensing company to control and earn a significant share of the royalties collected.

It looks like the long-running dispute between GEMA, Germany's brutish performance rights organization, and YouTube isn't ending anytime soon. This licensing battle goes back to 2009, when Google's contract with GEMA ended and the German PRO asked for $0.17 per view, a rate Google claimed was "without comparison in the history of online music." (By comparison. YouTube was paying PRS, the UK performance rights group, $0.0034 per view in 2009.) GEMA countered that it had offered to take $0.01 per stream, but wanted YouTube to cough up more usage data in exchange for the cut rate.

Once this initial negotiation broke down, things went from frosty to litigious.

GEMA went on to sue YouTube in a 2010 test case for distributing copyrighted material without permission — holding it responsible for copyrighted material uploaded by its users. Then in April last year a German court ruled that YouTube must install software filters to prevent users uploading content whose rights GEMA holds.

After a couple of lawsuits, GEMA returned to the "negotiating" table, this time with an offer a bit more in line with reality.

Die Welt reports that GEMA wants the German Patent and Trademark Office to arbitrate on whether its proposed rate of 0.375 cents per stream is appropriate — but YouTube is arguing for a lower rate.

This doesn't really resemble a negotiation at this point. GEMA offers, Google counteroffers and all of a sudden, the home team's PTO is going to decide whether GEMA's preferred rate is "appropriate." But that's not all: GEMA is also suing YouTube to the tune (pun really not intended) of €1.6 million for the alleged unlicensed use of 1,000 songs from its catalog.

Not only that, but another German court is in the process of defining YouTube's role on the web, something that could potentially see YouTube remove itself entirely from Germany.

A Hamburg court is already arbitrating another row between GEMA and YouTube over how the platform should be defined. GEMA claims that YouTube is a content provider whose business model is built on content that is subject to royalties. YouTube, on the other hand, says it is a hosting service which simply makes space available to its users.

The push here is to remove any sort of "safe harbor" (such as it exists in German law) and hold YouTube entirely responsible for anything uploaded by its users. Framing YouTube as a content provider puts it right in the legal crosshairs, which is where GEMA wants it. Despite the efforts made by YouTube to curtail infringement, GEMA still wants to see it pay more.

Of course, GEMA's doing this "for the artists." And those artists must be thrilled, what with the world's most popular video streaming site serving up this message, rather than actual videos, all too frequently.


And wouldn't you know it, GEMA also has a problem with the message posted by YouTube, which has become visual shorthand for the German YouTube Experience.

GEMA is demanding that YouTube take down the on-screen notice blocking music videos in Germany that blames GEMA for the impasse. In November last year, GEMA head Harald Heker accused YouTube of deliberately misleading German users with the notice.

"The notice about GEMA is being posted wilfully, purely to stir opinion," he told WirtschaftsWoche magazine at the time. "YouTube is trying to awaken the false impression that the failure to license is GEMA's responsibility. That is simply wrong."

This sounds familiar. Those blocking or taking down videos for various violations seem to think that YouTube should keep them free from criticism, too. Considering YouTube has already negotiated licenses with various other PROs, including ASCAP and the infamous PRS, it certainly seems likely that GEMA's contentious relationship with, well, just about everyone, might have something to do with the "failure to license." GEMA can complain about the "impression" this message makes, but if it were solely up to Google, German citizens wouldn't be seeing this message at all. Here's Google's statement:

YouTube believes that rights holders and artists should benefit from their work. We have dozens of collection society deals in place across more than 45 countries because we provide an important source of income for musicians and a platform where new artists can be discovered and promoted. Music labels are generating hundreds of millions of dollars on YouTube every year. Artists, composers, authors, publishers, and record labels in Germany are missing this opportunity as a result of GEMA’s decisions. We remain committed to finding a solution with GEMA compatible with YouTube’s business model so that we can again provide a source of revenue for musicians and a vibrant platform for music lovers in Germany.

That's the crux of the situation. The artists, composers, etc. aren't just missing these opportunities -- they're not even being allowed to have these opportunities, thanks to GEMA's insistence on combative, hardline tactics. GEMA hasn't done much for the artists it "represents," but it's doing a great job turning Germany into a cultural island.