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

Thu, Feb 27th 2014 9:31am — Tim Cushing

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.

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: gema, germany, licensing, pro
Companies: youtube

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael, 27 Feb 2014 @ 9:35am

I wonder how long it will take for there to be a Chrome extension that replaces the new message with the old one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 9:46am

Someone needs to tell the German courts that unless it grants YouTube immunity from lawsuits over videos that YouTube isn't going to open itself to liability because the courts are crying over the "blocked" content message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 9:51am

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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 9:54am

not to forget the GEMA was created in 1933 by the Nazi party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:09am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:44am
  
  Re:
  not to forget that Google was formed by the smallpox-blankets-for-free party
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analyst (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 9:54am

Gema just created a lose lose for themselves
Gema to the courts: Youtube is the one choosing to take down the videos, not us.

Youtube to Gema: Since you have argued in court that it is "our choice", we have chosen to stop taking the videos down.

Gema to Youtube: But ... but ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 9:58am

"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  "YouTube alone is responsible for blocking the videos, claiming otherwise is simply false, GEMA argued."
  -
  I was wondering about that too. These guys live in a total fantasy land.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    In a way its true that its Youtube's responsibility to block the content but GEMA omits out the fact that Youtube has no choice but to block because they have been told to block the content by DMCA/court action that GEMA issued previously in the first place.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Youtube is 'responsible' in this case in the same way that a person would be 'responsible' for being shot after refusing to hand over their wallet to a mugger.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Lets play fill in the blank:
    
    GEMA: You tube is responsible for blocking the videos
    YouTube: Fine, in that case consider them unblocked. Must have been just a misunderstanding
    GEMA: _________
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sacredjunk, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      GEMA: We'll see you in court
      
      ..which is a German court with a case of a German company v an American one
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:06am
  
  Re:
  They want to have it both ways, force Google/YT to either block the videos or pay GEMA's insane rates, while at the same time not have their involvement mentioned, in an attempt to have everyone blame Google/YT rather than the party actually responsible, GEMA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:02am

"Sorry, this video is unavailable in Germany because GEMA wants us to pay too much money for it, so we did not come to a licensing agreement and thus we are forced to block it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 27 Feb 2014 @ 11:21am
  
  Re:
  "Sorry, this video is unavailable in Germany because GEMA wants us to pay 500x the going rate, so we did not come to a licensing agreement and thus we are forced to block it."
  
  FTFY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sacredjunk, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:29pm
  
  Re:
  "Sorry, this video is unavailable in Germany because a company with initials starting in G and ending in EMA wants us to pay 500x the going rate, so we did not come to a licensing agreement and thus we are forced to block it."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:04am

GEMA gets protection in the courts like Apple gets vetoes from Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:11am

so hurting or upsetting GEMA mustn't happen but hurting or upsetting Google via YouTube is perfectly ok? what sort of 'justice' do you call this? the bloody Germans are as bad as the Swedes! when it offends a company/person it's a no no, but when Google is on the end of it, it doesn't matter. double standards, i call it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:11am

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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  Content creators don't need to worry. They created their content and can put it where they want.
  
  Entering the market NOW is easy. It just the old works that are walled off by the plutocrats. They have based their wealth on the creation of others, and they won't let go.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Content creators don't need to worry. They created their content and can put it where they want."
    
    Yeah, except for all those content creators who have their own content taken down.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Todd Knarr (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 12:25pm
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can't just handwave away the "it's expensive" part. The expense (in money, even ignoring in time) is a MAJOR reason why this is not an option for a lot of these people.
        
        Lawsuits like that are pretty much a privilege reserved for the wealthy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TKnarr (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 12:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 10:37am

Youtube: Ok fine. We will change the message.

New message:

We are sorry but this is video is blocked in Germany. For further explanation as to why, contact GEMA about it.

PS: Be nice if you do as they appear to have a bad case of butthurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- antymat, 27 Feb 2014 @ 11:57am
  
  Just apply the Streisand effect
  Say "We are sorry but this is video is blocked in Germany, because THEY requested us to block it". GEMA not even mentioned.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Just apply the Streisand effect
    "We are sorry but this video is blocked in Germany because a major music collection society that is butthurt about us naming them previously in these notifications won't release the rights." That's the change they should make.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Togashi (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 4:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Just apply the Streisand effect
      "The people responsible for sacking the people who wrote the previous message have now been sacked."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 6:59am
  
  Re:
  Next in the news: GEMA servers explode due to high traffic, PRO executives blame Google for not providing them with better servers (!!!).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SJ, 27 Feb 2014 @ 11:13am

New message to users
"Dear user

Unfortunately we can't show you the video. Also we can't tell you why since the GEMA, through the Munich court, forbids us to do so."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 11:24am

"Due to the evil GEMA, we have been forced to put a wall between you and your epic loot."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mischab1, 27 Feb 2014 @ 1:31pm

Isn't it obvious? Google has chosen to not pay GEMA what GEMA wants. Therefore it is Google who has chosen to block the videos. :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 1:56pm

Its because they don't want people to know its the corporation pulling these videos down. They want to pretend like its youtube "choosing" to pull down videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call Girls Everywhere, 27 Feb 2014 @ 2:39pm

GEMA is Our Organisation
GEMA is a PRO, PRO is a prostitute, hence GEMA is one of us. Be nice, we still need to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zem, 27 Feb 2014 @ 2:48pm

To view this video requires someone to pay GEMA. Contact to arrange payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Davo, 27 Feb 2014 @ 7:11pm

Boycott them
People should just boycott anything under GEMA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hibby the Hoovy (profile), 27 Feb 2014 @ 9:40pm
  
  Re: Boycott them
  Should be fairly easy since German music is fairly difficult to find here in the States.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
babajaga (profile), 6 Apr 2014 @ 9:26pm

Proxy to access blocked youtube videos
It is possible to circumvent the GEMA blockage for Germans, ref.
www.viewtubes.de

They have a limited free account, sponsored by ads, or a premium, unlimited service for 1E/month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]