Tied, Bound And Handcuffed

Michael Hedges April 23, 2012 - Follow on Twitter

Absent a digital correction of copyright rules, rights holders will continue to pick away at Web service providers and portals through the courts. An open internet openly flaunts those “ancient, pre-digital rules” seeking sustainable business models. But rights holders want business models, too. The Web and content providers are tied, bound and, maybe, handcuffed together.

When the Hamburg State Court ruled (April 20) that YouTube, owned by Google, must remove seven copyright videos both sides claimed victory. German royalty collector GEMA, representing music publishers, composers and songwriters, won “an important partial victory,” said a spokesperson, as the court followed previous rulings that copyright holders can demand their material is removed from YouTube. A “more efficient” filtering system through which errant material can be identified and removed must be implemented.

The court decision was also a partial victory for Google. The court acceded to Google’s argument that YouTube is simply a hosting platform and not quite responsible for users activities. No monetary penalties against Google were assessed though the court indicated it would impose big fines - €250,000 – if material is not removed on a copyright holder’s request but Google is not required to check out content already uploaded for copyright infringement.

“Today’s ruling confirms that YouTube as a hosting platform cannot be obliged to control the content of all videos uploaded to the site,” said a YouTube spokesperson, quoted by VatorNews (April 21). “We remain committed to finding a solution to the music licensing issue in Germany that will benefit artists, composers, authors, publishers and record labels, as well as the wider YouTube community. This court's interpretation of the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive) would make it much more difficult for user generated content platforms to operate.  It would jeopardize not only YouTube but every other innovative service on the internet that allows users to submit content by forcing them to implement filtering.”

GEMA’s lawsuit against Google was, as usual, largely about the money and forcing the Web search giant to the negotiating table. Rights holders want more money per click and Google wants to hold the line. This court decision can be appealed but neither party indicated an interest in pushing their luck with a higher court.

While rights holders continue their quest for cash from Web portals and users or both in the courts, supporters of an open internet profess grave dangers ahead if policy makers continue the march toward more surveillance and less privacy. The filtering described in the German GEMA v. YouTube decision would likely provide copyright holders with users identification.

“Democracy depends on an open internet,” said Web pioneer Tim Berners-Lee to the W3C conference in Lyon (April 18). “Go out in the streets and complain that your democracy is being threatened.”

Policy makers both in Europe and North America have been stunned by adverse public reaction to anti-piracy legislation designed, ostensibly, to build new copyright regimes for the internet age. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiated among the European Commission, the United States and other big countries, largely in secret with the aid and comfort from the movie, music and publishing industries, has been faced down by public and political concerns about civil liberties. Berners-Lee criticized ACTA’s progenetor, the French Hadopi law, as “ridiculously out of whack” with the way the internet world works.

The European Commission (EC) actively championed ACTA as a step toward harmonizing the mélange of European copyright rules, notwithstanding their very analogue nature. EC Vice President for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes lead in promoting the treaty even after the European Parliament’s special rapporteur French MEP Kader Arif quit in January over the lack of public consultation. His replacement, British MEP David Martin, recommended (April 12) that the European Parliament vote it down. “Given the vagueness of certain aspects of the treaty and the uncertainty over its interpretation, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection for citizens' rights in the future under ACTA,” he observed.

Commissioner Kroes, also speaking at the W3C conference, railed against “ancient, pre-digital rules” that shackle internet development with “digital handcuffs.” Content creators, she said, want the internet open and accessible, which “doesn’t necessarily mean offering something for nothing.”

“If we are too rigid or too constraining in our approach,” she continued, “we will put artificial limits on innovation and discovery. And that's not being open.”

See also in ftm Knowledge

Google Is... Still

Google's leaders say their goal is to change the world. And they have. Far more than a search engine, Google has impact over every media sector and beyond, from consumer behavior to broadcasting and advertising to newspapers. That impact is detailed in this ftm Knowledge file. 84 pages PDF (June 2012)

Order here

Digital Transitions

Media's transition from analogue to digital has opened opportunities and unleashed challenges beyond the imagination. Media is connected and mobile yet fettered by old rules and new economics. Broadcasters and publishers borrow from the past while inventing whole new services. This ftm Knowledge file explores the changes. 88 pages PDF (March 2012)

Order here

Intellectual Property Rights - Yours, Mine and Ours

Every content creator and user has a vested interest in intellectual property rights, the rules meant to set a course for fair distribution of art, music, video and the written word. Agreement on those rules is not absolute. This ftm Knowledge file explores what's yours, mine and ours. 42 pages PDF (March 2011)

Order here