Brazilian Performance Rights Group Claims Collecting From Bloggers Was Simply An 'Operational Error' After Google Pushes Back
from the and-i-thought-google-was-just-there-to-screw-lowly-creatives dept
Last week, Brazil's citizens were in an uproar about the national performance rights organization (ECAD) attempting to charge a non-profit blog over $200 a month for embedding Youtube and Vimeo videos, and implicitly threatening to similarly bill other blogs. ECAD claimed that not only was this allowed by Brazil's currently-standing laws but that, despite collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Youtube itself every year, this new set of fees would not be a double-dip.How quickly things change, especially for entities who find themselves staring down an angry internet. At first, ECAD seemed disturbingly untroubled by the uproar, including the memeification of its intention to stretch the definition of "public performance" to include all audible sound. But it suddenly changed its prohibitively expensive tune when hundreds of thousands of dollars were at stake.
None other than Google Brazil itself issued a blog post stating that ECAD's existing agreement with Youtube did not allow the agency to collect fees from bloggers, pointing out the obvious to ECAD's wilfully obtuse representatives:
These sites don't host or transmit any content when they associate a YouTube video to their site, and as such, the fact of embedding videos from YouTube can't be treated as a ‘retransmission'. As these sites aren't performing any music, ECAD can't, within the law, collect any payment from these.Having been smacked down by its main benefactor, ECAD issued a statement of its own, claiming the whole thing was just an "error" and that it had no intention of setting up tollbooths on every website with embedded video:
1- Ecad has never had the intention to curtail the freedom on the internet, known to be a space devoted to information, dissemination of music and other creative works, and propagation of ideas. The institution also lacks a copyright billing strategy geared to embedded videos. Royalties collections for webcasting have been under re-evaluation since February 29th, and the case reported in recent days took place before then. Nevertheless, it resulted from an operational error of interpretation, which represents an isolated fact in this segment. (...)Note that ECAD has left itself a bit of an opening for pursuing these fees in the future. Supposedly it can still go after blogs but only if it informs Google/Youtube of its intention to do so. It seems the only error it feels it made was getting caught. Everything else was simply a clerical screw-up and if all ducks had been properly ordered, it would have been free to bill websites for linking to Youtube.
2- Two years ago, Ecad and Google signed a letter of intent that guides the relationship between both organizations. The document details thatEcad can collect copyright fees for music coming from embedded videos, as long as it gives advance notice to Google/YouTube. As Ecad did not send such a notification, it becomes clear that this is not its goal. If it were the case, it would have sent the notification the letter of intent requires. (...)
As it stands now, ECAD has backed completely away from this plan. But, once the furor dies down and recedes into the past, I wouldn't be surprised to see this sort of tactic deployed again, if not by ECAD, than certainly by another "aspirational" performance rights organization.
(Hat tip to Techdirt's own Glyn Moody and his amazing Twitter feed. He's asked you all very nicely to follow him and this post is an example of why you should. So, follow this link to do exactly that..)
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: brazil, copyright, embeds, errors, performance rights, videos
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Capitalism at its finest, I can bet a kidney they wouldn't have backed down if Google remained silent (even though the interwebz angry mob would do the trick later). Amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Granting monopolies and exclusive rights isn't capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If we're defining "capitalism" to be our current fascist, crony corporatist state of existence, then sure, fire away.
Side Note: The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is tricky to use correctly, and people often don't. Let's say I create a new religion based on one rule: absolute nonviolence, no matter the situation. If someone claiming to be a follower of my religion goes on a shooting spree, and I claim he isn't a follower at all, can you "No True Scotsman" me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a vegetarian eats meat, is he a vegetarian?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OH! OH! NO TRUE SCOTSMAN! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We live in a peculiar time where saying something was a mistake or "human error" somehow protects them from culpability and reprisals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Added the important part there for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who pays the fees?
Even if this is the case, it seems to me that Ecad could only collect those fees from Google. The bloggers wouldn't have to pay those fees in any case.
This is because it was Google - and not the bloggers - that signed that agreement. You can't be legally responsible for a contract you never even saw.
So, Ecad had no business contacting the bloggers no matter what is in the agreement.
Well, unless Brazil has some bizarro-world contract laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]