YouTube is responsible for user content, says German court #1

YouTube is responsible for, yet not liable for, user-uploaded videos on its service, according to two separate court rulings in Germany this week. Google-owned YouTube has been in dispute with German performing rights organisation GEMA since 2006. On Tuesday, the Munich district court rejected GEMA’s bid for compensation – …

[Khaptain]

TPB + Google

Since the Swedish courts decided that TPBs owners were liable, it only stands the Google be found liable for the same thing, albeit by the German courts..

Brings back some nostaliga, Dead Kennedys anyone "Uber Alles, Uber Alles California"

[big_D]

Re: TPB + Google

Given that every other website has been responsible for what is posted on it since the late 1990s in Germany, it is hardly a surprise.

[GrumpenKraut]

GEMA

Just a bit of perspective: GEMA is loved in Germany as much a turd sundwich. Maybe less.

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

Re: GEMA

Since you're not a native English speaker, I thought I better inform you that you've misspelt "tuna". Your sincerely, a PRS rep.

_{Is there any point using a joke icon when half of you can't see it? *sigh*}

[big_D]

Re: GEMA

True Grumpen, but in this case YouTube has made them smell of roses...

In the last round, they lost because they said that GEMA had told them to block music... Only for GEMA to win against YouTube, because they never told YouTube to block the content.

That got YouTube to change the message from "GEMA told us to take it down," to "this content maybe copyrighted and we haven't asked GEMA if they mind." (Well, paraphrased.)

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't buy it, it's easy to steal a youtube channels automatically, and a bit less easy to launch a dmca strike. Computer game companies are able to do it so I don't understand why the music industry seems incapable.

[frank ly]

Maybe they want their music videos to stay on YouTube so they can claim the compensation (which has just been shot down).

[Anonymous Coward]

what does this mean?

/quote

“YouTube cannot escape the responsibility for copyright infringements and control of infringements must not pass on to the rights owner,” said GEMA CEO Harald Heker.

/quote

Can't only the rights owner make the determination if one of their copyrighted works is being used improperly? If not, what's to prevent anti-GEMA from sending keep-it-online requests to counter those of GEMA?

[GrumpenKraut]

Re: what does this mean?

> Can't only the rights owner ...

Not realistic. Essentially GEMA has each and everybody by their balls.

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_%28German_organization%29

and browse the section "Criticism of GEMA" to get an idea how fantastically shitty GEMA is.

The rest of the Wikipedia article is worth reading for more context.

[Ole Juul]

Sounds like garbage

The court said:

“. . . if a service provider is notified of a clear violation of the law, it must not only remove the content immediately, but also take precautions which ensure that no further infringements will be possible.”

So it's possible to take down content based on a "clear violation". Everything to rights organizations is "clear", that's just how they see things. And to ensure no further infringements would require YouTube to shut down, otherwise it wouldn't be really ensured. None of this makes any sense.

[nijam]

> GEMA, which represents around 70,000 members...

I think we all know what "represents" means in this context.

> ... this ruling was good for artists.

Because artists totally don't want anyone accessing their art, except via extortive middlemen. Youtube, in other words, isn't extortive enough.