German Court Tells YouTube To Change 'Content Blocked' Notice After GEMA Complains About Its Hurt Feelings

from the oh,-so-you're-a-'crying-on-the-inside'-sort-of-thug dept

German YouTube users get to see a whole lot of the following rather than actual videos, thanks to the world’s most aggressive PRO (performance rights organization).

GEMA, which has been engaged in litigation against YouTube for several years now in hopes of “negotiating” higher fees, has just secured a ridiculous decision in its favor from a German court that specifically targets the wording used in the “sorry ’bout that, Germans” message.

Time and again, users are informed that videos are blocked due to GEMA not granting the necessary music rights. As a result, GEMA has become very unpopular indeed.

Trying to remedy the situation, GEMA applied for an injunction to force YouTube to change the messages, claiming that they misrepresent the situation and damage GEMA’s reputation. YouTube alone is responsible for blocking the videos, claiming otherwise is simply false, GEMA argued.

Yesterday the District Court of Munich agreed with the music group and issued an injunction to force YouTube to comply, stating that the notices “denigrate” GEMA with a “totally distorted representation of the legal dispute between the parties.” Changing the message to state that videos are not available due to a lack of a licensing agreement between YouTube and GEMA would be more appropriate, the Court said.

Poor sweet, sensitive GEMA. It can’t handle German users being told that the PRO has yet to grant the rights. Instead, it wants to make it look as though it’s entirely YouTube’s fault. It wants to pretend it hasn’t spent a majority of the last half-decade battling and suing YouTube, the end result of which has been massive amounts of videos being blocked in Germany.

GEMA’s complaint is every bit as ridiculous as that of an artist in a story we covered back in 2012, who claimed that YouTube’s “content removed” notices somehow made the artists looks like the “bad guys” by listing the party responsible for the takedown in the message. In that case, this artist was upset that YouTube was doing exactly what he asked it to do: take down infringing content and notify the infringer that the content had been removed.

The same thing applies here. GEMA hasn’t granted the rights to use this content, therefore it’s blocked in Germany. But that heaps too much of the blame on GEMA’s tiny shoulders, a burden GEMA (and now a German court) feels should be transferred to YouTube. This despite the fact that GEMA could have an agreement with YouTube, but because it’s asking for $0.17 a stream (as compared to say, PRS, which receives $0.0034 per view), there’s very little chance of it ever obtaining one. In the meantime, Germans will continue to see quizzically apologetic faces and court-ordered wording instead of videos. This ultimately has nothing to do with GEMA’s faux concern for its stable of artists (don’t forget: GEMA is opt-out, not opt-in, like other PROs) and everything to do with its public image.

GEMA’s reputation isn’t something it can salvage at this point and no amount of wording is going to change the fact that it’s its own worst enemy, and pretty much the worst thing that has happened to 95% of its roster (the top 5% or so will continue to rake in cash — as with every collection agency anywhere). That a PRO with this much power has the audacity to complain to the courts about its self-inflicted wounds shows it still holds very tightly to its outsized sense of entitlement. That a German court would oblige is unfortunate, but not really all that surprising.

No matter what the final wording reads, German artists and fans won’t forget who’s the real problem here.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: youtube

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “German Court Tells YouTube To Change 'Content Blocked' Notice After GEMA Complains About Its Hurt Feelings”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

What’s the problem GEMA?

Are you not standing behind your “work” to the point where you want to distance yourself from the results YOU are creating?

This is why agencies such as yourself are not taken seriously by the general public (except for OOTB or that other retard bob).

You demand content be taken down, and then want to avoid all responsibility for it. Typical MPAA/RIAA douchebaggery at its finest!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

From wikipedia: “The CEO of STAGMA was Leo Ritter, who occupied the same position in the original GEMA and was in the habit of giving Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a prize to worthy employees.”

This was during its creation around 1933, not today’s GEMA. Today’s GEMA gives out ‘Video Blocked’ messages as prizes to worthy employees.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Trying to remedy the situation, GEMA applied for an injunction to force YouTube to change the messages, claiming that they misrepresent the situation and damage GEMA?s reputation. YouTube alone is responsible for blocking the videos, claiming otherwise is simply false, GEMA argued.”

Well GEMA did get Youtube to block the content by DMCA/court action in the first place so how again is it Youtubes fault for blocking the content when they have no choice but to block according to the DMCA/court action that GEMA issued.

Anonymous Coward says:

If they can keep mentioning GEMA in the notices, they probably will. Changing the formulation from a passive stance to mentioning Youtube and GEMA as parties doesn’t change the effect on the reputation of GEMA. The only change is that GEMA get more ammunition to start shitstorms in the media against Youtube.

The war waged against Youtube from media companies will reach new hights. Unfortunately it will be at the expense of content creators on Youtube. I know that secondary and tertiary licensing is already a huge problem for creative people and MCNs. Increasing the advertising share is not going to matter much if the cost of making legally licensed videos is cranked up by even more. Maybe it will make it harder to enter the market, but advantageous for the majority it is definitely not!

Todd Knarr (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think in those cases that more creators need to demand a copy of the DMCA notice and pursue legal action against whoever issued it based on a false claim to be authorized to act for the copyright holder. 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi) requires a statement under penalty of perjury that the person filing the notice is authorized to act for the copyright holder, so hold them and the courts to the law. Yeah it’s expensive, but that’s the only way it’s going to get stopped.

TKnarr (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

True, there’s a cost. OTOH there’s a cost to not doing it: the cost of fighting to get your content put back up, and the cost of not having your content available while you’re fighting the takedown. If the offending parties never suffer any penalty for doing it, they’ll just keep doing it and bleed you dry in the process. Slow or fast, pick your poison but you will have to pick a poison.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...