Confused French Indie Labels Sue Google
from the let's-work-on-the-logic-bit dept
It appears that the collection society for indie record labels in France, SPPF, is a bit confused about how the internet works. It's sued Google over videos on YouTube, claiming that while Google had removed a bunch of videos that were using songs covered by SPPF, many of those songs had returned! Of course, that's probably because other people uploaded them. But rather than put the blame where it's due (on the uploaders), SPPF has just decided to sue Google. Even worse, SPPF never bothered to sign up for Google's totally free program that lets artists upload content they want protected so that Google can match the content and either stop it from being uploaded or allow the copyright holder to profit by putting ads on it. So, basically, SPPF is complaining that Google won't do what Google absolutely would do if SPPF only used the tools Google has provided. And, claiming that SPPF shouldn't have to be proactive on this makes no sense either -- because how is Google to know whether the use of the content is authorized or not? This lawsuit seems like folks at SPPF were just too lazy to actually understand how Google/YouTube work and so they sued.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content, copyright, france, music, videos
Companies: google, sppf
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm betting the Riaa exec's are frothing with envy at the SPPF's balls to try something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple - the assumption by google / youtube is that everything is good until they are told it isn't. It should be the other way. That would eliminate all of these issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, yes at all. That's the burden of proof being on the accused. Action should not be taken based on accusations, and this whole "severity of the accusation giving weight to our response" idiocy had better come to a close pretty effing quick or we're all in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah once again AC
"Simple - the assumption by google / youtube is that everything is good until they are told it isn't. It should be the other way. That would eliminate all of these issues."
Do you even have the grey matter to take this position to its logical solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah once again AC
"innocent until proven guilty" is something for a court of law. It doesn't extend to commercial rights. In Commercial Rights, it is basically "you have them or you don't". There isn't any "innocent" here, it's "yes I can, or no I can't", nothing more.
The current DMCA regime pretty much allows rights holders to get screwed over all the time. Anyone can use their material, and the rights holder has to go out and police the entire internet to find their content and report it as "not permitted". In most of these cases, if the original poster was required to show that they have the right, the material would never get posted. In the end, the rights holder gets screwed, their material gets misused, they have to pay to police and protect their rights, and they have no legal recourse to recoup those losses.
It sucks to be a rights holder, it is expensive to protect your property, and everyone else has incredible leeway to abuse your rights without you having any way to get back at them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oops again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oops again
i *did* mean double correction, and i *am* sorry for that
not for the double correction, but the erroneous apology
...does this make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woweeewewow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SPFF = modern day Nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you check your archives, the same SPPF sued Vuze/Azureus. It made the headlines and they newer showed in court. So the case was filed.
SPPF represents a bunch of French indies (one being Carla Bruni-Sarkozy's label). They think they have to make this kind of announcement to prove they exist against a rival French "syndicate" SCPP.
This is of the upmost "ridicule" but this is ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh My name was hijacked Ha Ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]