# Uploadfilter EU [German]



## TheAndy (Feb 12, 2021)

[English Translation is underneath the german text]

Hallo liebe VI- Control Community,

wie Ihr vielleicht bereits mitbekommen habt, wird Mitte Juni das bis zum heutigen Zeitpunkt stark umstrittene Gesetz der Bundesregierung bezüglich des Upload Filters verabschiedet.
Die Gesetzesentwürfe wurden am 03.02.2021 bekannt gegeben.
Ich möchte Abschnitt 5 und meine damit verbundenen Sorgen um die Musik Industrie gerne mit euch diskutieren.
Hier wird angegeben, dass die Lizenzen nun durch eine Verwertungsgesellschaft (in diesem Fall die GEMA) für alle geregelt werden.
Das klingt vielleicht erstmal unproblematisch, wird aber durch das Weiterlesen immer kurioser. Die Verwertungsgesellschaft handelt nicht nur im Rahmen ihrer Mitglieder, sondern auch im Namen aller weiteren Künstler, sogenannter "Außenstehender":
„§ 7a Außenstehender im Sinne dieses Gesetzes ist ein Rechtsinhaber, der im Hinblick auf die betreffende Nutzung nicht in einem vertraglichen Wahrnehmungsverhältnis zu einer Verwertungsgesellschaft steht.“
Das hiermit verbundene Problem ist, dass ich als Künstler keine Möglichkeiten mehr habe, Direktlizenzen zu vertreiben, da diese nun über eine Verwertungsgesellschaft laufen müssen.
Zudem lässt sich aus dem Gesetzesentwurf nicht entnehmen, ob bei einer Lizenzerwerbung bei einer Verwertungsgesellschaft tatsächlich am Ende auch der Rechteinhaber informiert wird, wenn dieser nicht bei der GEMA Mitglied ist. (Wer bekommt dann die Lizenzgebühren????)
Zudem finde ich es höchst bedenklich, dass im Namen des Künstlers entschieden wird, ob etwas zum Beispiel auf YouTube genutzt werden darf oder nicht.
Aus eigener Erfahrung kann ich sagen, dass Videos die ich über Content ID Systeme geclaimed habe, mehr Gewinn einbringen, als Einnahmen aus Direktlizenzen.
Ich könnte noch viel mehr problematische Punkte darlegen, da dieser Gesetzesentwurf bis dato noch sehr viele Fragen offen lässt. Dies würde aber den Rahmen dieses Posts sprengen.
Ihr findet den Gesetzesentwurf als PDF unter folgendem Link: https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gese...er_Binnenmarkt.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5

Ich freue mich auf eine spannende Diskussion!

[English Version]
Hello dear VI- Control Community,

as you may have already noticed, in mid-June the federal government's law regarding the upload filter, which has been highly controversial to date, will be passed.
The draft legislation was announced on 02/03/2021.
I would like to discuss section 5 and my related concerns about the music industry with you.
Here it is stated that the licenses will now be regulated by a collecting society (in this case GEMA) for all.
This may sound unproblematic at first, but becomes more and more curious as you read on. The collecting society acts not only on behalf of its members, but also on behalf of all other artists, so-called "outsiders":
"Section 7a outsider within the meaning of this Act is a rightholder who is not in a contractual management relationship with a collecting society with respect to the use in question."
The problem associated with this is that I, as an artist, no longer have any possibilities to distribute direct licenses, since these must now go through a collecting society.
In addition, it is not clear from the draft law whether, when a license is acquired from a collecting society, the rights owner will actually be informed in the end if he is not a member of GEMA. (Who then gets the royalties????)
In addition, I find it highly questionable that it is decided in the name of the artist whether something may be used on YouTube, for example, or not.
From my own experience I can say that videos I have claimed via content ID systems bring in more profit than income from direct licenses.
I could explain many more problematic points, as this draft law still leaves many questions unanswered. But this would go beyond the scope of this post.
You can find the draft bill as a PDF at the following link: https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gese...er_Binnenmarkt.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5

I am looking forward to an exciting discussion!

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


----------



## muratkayi (Feb 14, 2021)

Das heißt, die Vergabe einer Creative Commons Lizenz als Nicht-Gema Mitglied ist unmöglich?


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 14, 2021)

Holy fuck, that's *insane, *even by German standards! That PDF you linked has 174 pages, I don't have the time and sanity left to read all that, and I fear that a lot of the people who will vote on it won't read it either (let alone understand the implications even if they did read it).

Is there maybe some lawyer who wrote up a good summary?

Feels like every single thing they try to do to help creatives and freelancers ends up fucking them over instead :(. 


Wouldn't be surprised if some international companies just start geo-blocking German IPs instead of dealing with this stuff, if it's too complicated on their end to pay out the appropriate licenses.


----------



## Hadrondrift (Feb 14, 2021)

Spoiler: Original text in German



Ich verfolge die Entwicklung des deutschen Urheberrechts nun schon seit vielen Jahren, es ist ein Trauerspiel. Die Komplexität hat inzwischen Formen angenommen, die es einem Nichtjuristen fast unmöglich macht, da noch vollständig durchzublicken. Regelmäßig werden die Rechte der Verwertungsgesellschaften und Verlage gestärkt, die Künstler/Urheber haben das Nachsehen.

Da jetzt durch den offenbar neu eingeführten Begriff des "Außenstehenden" sogar diejenigen erfasst werden sollen, die sich dem Verwertungssystem entziehen möchten (okay, etwas salopp formuliert), kann man dem ganzen Kram nicht einmal mehr den Mittelfinger zeigen. Sieht mir auch nach einer opt-out-Geschichte aus, d.h. Verwertungsgesellschaften können Rechte an Werken einräumen auch ohne Einwilligung des Außenstehenden (d.h. Werkschaffenden). Ganz schlimme Entwicklung zum Nachteil der Urheber. Bin aber nicht genau darüber im Klaren, was der Gesetzgeber hier im Hinterkopf hat. Vermutlich jegliche Art von Content-Plattformen, vielleicht Verwertung verwaister Werke, wo der Werkschaffende (als Außenstehender) nicht mehr auffindbar ist usw.

Ich bin beruflich zum Glück nicht auf das Urheberecht angewiesen, denn intensive inhaltliche Auseinandersetzung damit ist ein Zeitfresser ohnegleichen.



I have been following the development of German copyright law for many years now, and it is a tragedy. The complexity has now taken on forms that make it almost impossible for a non-lawyer to see through it completely. The rights of the collecting societies and publishers are regularly strengthened, while the artists/copyright holders are left out in the cold.

Now that the apparently newly introduced term "outsider _(ger:Außenstehender)_" is even supposed to cover those who want to escape the exploitation system (okay, a little casually put), you can't even give the whole shebang the middle finger anymore. It also looks to me like an opt-out story, i.e. collecting societies can grant rights to works even without the consent of the outsider (i.e. creator of the work). Quite a bad development to the detriment of the creators. But I'm not exactly sure what the legislator has in mind here. Probably any kind of content platforms, maybe exploitation of orphan works, where the creator (as an outsider) is no longer traceable, etc.

Fortunately, I am not professionally dependent on copyright law, because intensive content-related discussion is an unparalleled time eater.

_Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator_


----------



## NODZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Klingt so, als wäre es für alle Kunstschaffenden, die noch keine haben, langsam an der Zeit für eine Rechtsschutzversicherung. :D Ich bin noch gar nicht in dem Thema drin, aber basierend auf dem was ich bislang dazu gelesen habe, möchte ich das auch gar nicht selbst klären müssen :D Jeeeez


----------



## MarkusS (Feb 14, 2021)

OK, so I haven't read the original law (life is too short) and I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand from reading articles about the subject is that the idea is to create some sort of technology that will track down the content of your upload to the internet. If your video (or audio file) contains copyrighted material the uploader or platform will have to pay the PRO for the use.

It's a bit like when a shop owner pays GEMA when he plays the radio. However, as it appears there can be no more "royalty free music" on the web in Germany since they will collect for anyone, even those who are not actual members of this PRO.

Interestingly enough this already happens in France where the SACEM allows the use and collects royalties for any use of music, even of non-members. See the infamous Daftpunk law suit against the SACEM (Daftpunk won, btw.).

How does this affect direct licensing? When you issue a direct license you are guaranteeing that your client does not have to pay royalties to a PRO. With this new law, in theory, if you direct-license a musical cue for a game soundtrack or similar and that musical piece ends up in a Youtube video, the uploader will have to pay the PRO. So you could say that this is not a direct license anymore if the obligation to pay royalties is attached to it, but in this particular case this payment would be an obligation by law and cannot be avoided legally, except by geo-blocking Germany.

So I don't think it will affect direct-licensing by composers too much, because if you sign an agreement that has points in it that are non-compliant with the law these points of the agreement are void. It will be more of a problem for the music users than the composers. For the music user (uploader oder platform) there is no way around this payment since it includes non-members.

However, I wonder if they will have the nerve to ask the authors to pay for the use of their own music as they have done before.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Feb 14, 2021)

MarkusS said:


> "However, as it appears there can be no more "royalty free music" on the web in Germany since they will collect for anyone, even those who are not actual members of this PRO."
> 
> 
> "How does this affect direct licensing?"


Those were my thoughts, too...

Zugegeben ein wenig seltsam auf einmal hier etwas deutsches zu lesen


----------



## Uiroo (Feb 14, 2021)

Maybe we should respect that this is an english speaking forum?


----------



## MarkusS (Feb 14, 2021)

I think it's a way for the PROs to stay relevant in the era of the internet. All this online revenue slips through their fingers and with TV networks like Netflix going streaming only the days of television might be numbered. And with it the days of the PROs. This is a way to force themselves into the revenue loop again, using laws. Will it work? Will composers get more revenue? Will users pay the GEMA or will they make their content non-available in Germany? We'll see..


----------



## Hadrondrift (Feb 14, 2021)

Uiroo said:


> Maybe we should respect that this is an english speaking forum?


Yes, maybe that'd be better. Not speaking in one's native language about legal matters is sometimes a bit difficult. However, automatic translators are getting better and better, recommend DeepL which translates (not only) German to English amazingly well, better than google translate.


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 14, 2021)

Uiroo said:


> Maybe we should respect that this is an english speaking forum?


Hey, thank you for your comment. I had a lot of trouble even writing my text in german as it contains a very complex law. But i translated it and put an english version underneath


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 14, 2021)

MartinH. said:


> Holy fuck, that's *insane, *even by German standards! That PDF you linked has 174 pages, I don't have the time and sanity left to read all that, and I fear that a lot of the people who will vote on it won't read it either (let alone understand the implications even if they did read it).
> 
> Is there maybe some lawyer who wrote up a good summary?
> 
> ...


There is german lawyer who made a pretty good video about this topic and its complexity. 
I also had the feeling like this law isnt actually benefitial for the freelancer musicians but for the big label companys. 
For example youtube now have to get a license for every already exisisting video which contains copyrighed material. This is nearly unpossible to pay.
I wouldnt surprise if those international companies start geoblocking our ips either. But we will see how itll be implemented.


----------



## Stevie (Feb 14, 2021)

I am bound to say that there is a lot of panic-mongering going on here.
We authors really had a hard time to fight for our rights, especially in regard to huge companies like
Google / Youtube.

Very brief, because it's a very complex topic:

The GEMA is doing an extended collective licensing, that's something that has been done in the past by PROs in Norway and Denmark (already way before the new copyright policy). As an artist, you can opt out. But I highly doubt that as an artist you have enough negotiation power towards big companies like Google / Youtube.


Some more details (German): https://beta.musikwoche.de/details/457174?fbclid=IwAR1WmVwsr-IH70fsRsdcMoDdyziTAl31aU4s__So4wuvLBKnq7WrhzDAl8s


----------



## Stevie (Feb 14, 2021)

TheAndy said:


> There is german lawyer who made a pretty good video about this topic and its complexity.
> I also had the feeling like this law isnt actually benefitial for the freelancer musicians but for the big label companys.
> For example youtube now have to get a license for every already exisisting video which contains copyrighed material. This is nearly unpossible to pay.
> I wouldnt surprise if those international companies start geoblocking our ips either. But we will see how itll be implemented.



If we now start to post videos from Solmecke (a lawyer that positions himself clearly against artists and faught for pirates in the past) then this discussion is getting absurd.


----------



## Stevie (Feb 14, 2021)

MartinH. said:


> Holy fuck, that's *insane, *even by German standards! That PDF you linked has 174 pages, I don't have the time and sanity left to read all that, and I fear that a lot of the people who will vote on it won't read it either (let alone understand the implications even if they did read it).


This is not a German standard, it's EU law.



MartinH. said:


> Is there maybe some lawyer who wrote up a good summary?
> 
> Feels like every single thing they try to do to help creatives and freelancers ends up fucking them over instead :(.


No, actually not. Do you think you have good chances to negotiate your fees with companies like Google / Youtube?



MartinH. said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if some international companies just start geo-blocking German IPs instead of dealing with this stuff, if it's too complicated on their end to pay out the appropriate licenses.


Again, no, actually not. Do you have any idea how many rights have to be cleared when a movie is shown in theatres all over the world? It's been done, more than once.


----------



## Stevie (Feb 14, 2021)

MarkusS said:


> I think it's a way for the PROs to stay relevant in the era of the internet. All this online revenue slips through their fingers and with TV networks like Netflix going streaming only the days of television might be numbered. And with it the days of the PROs. This is a way to force themselves into the revenue loop again, using laws. Will it work? Will composers get more revenue? Will users pay the GEMA or will they make their content non-available in Germany? We'll see..


Actually it's a way for us artists, working in TV, to still make a living on the internet, since, as you said, there is a huge shift going on. I personally don't want to deal with a broadcast station /streaming services to negotiate my fees. I want to compose.


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 14, 2021)

Stevie said:


> If we now start to post videos from Solmecke (a lawyer that positions himself clearly against artists and faught for pirates in the past) then this discussion is getting absurd.


I posted this specific video because i think solmecke made a good summary of the law. In this video, I didnt have the feeling he positioned himself against the artists. He just questions the meaningfulness of the individual articles.


----------



## Stevie (Feb 14, 2021)

TheAndy said:


> I posted this specific video because i think solmecke made a good summary of the law. I dont care if he said something controversial to other topics in the past.


It is not about other topics, it is exactly about this very topic. Two years ago, there was quite a huge discussion about the copyright policy going on and Solmecke was always in favour of streaming services like Youtube.



TheAndy said:


> In this video, I didnt have the feeling he positioned himself against the artists. He just questions the meaningfulness of the individual articles.


Look, if you really want to use Solmecke as your only source of information, fine.
But I would strongly suggest to dive deeper into this before spreading a lot of FUD.
This topic is way too serious.

If you don't like this whole PRO stuff, then just opt out and negotiate your own rates with streaming services. Job done.


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 14, 2021)

Stevie said:


> It is not about other topics, it is exactly about this very topic. Two years ago, there was quite a huge discussion about the copyright policy going on and Solmecke was always in favour of streaming services like Youtube.
> 
> 
> Look, if you really want to use Solmecke as your only source of information, fine.
> ...


So first, I dont want to use solmecke as my only source of informations. Thats why i posted the link to the original law into my main post. I take my informations out of the original legislative draft.
I think it is inappropriate to accuse me of wanting to spread FUD. I just wrote down my personal concerns and wanted to discuss this topic. I am opend minded to new perspectives.
Also, i dont know why you are saying i dont like PRO stuff in general. I am just criticizing this specific point.


----------



## theark1 (Feb 14, 2021)

Stevie said:


> Actually it's a way for us artists, working in TV, to still make a living on the internet, since, as you said, there is a huge shift going on. I personally don't want to deal with a broadcast station /streaming services to negotiate my fees. I want to compose.


If you really want to make some decent money in this industry, you need to do more than "just" composing. It's neccessary to deal with clients as well as with broadcast stations/streaming services. If you want to get the best out of your business, you have to be open minded.
This also goes for this discussion.


----------



## MarkusS (Feb 14, 2021)

What will probably happen is that YouTube and similar services will agree to pay a global fee to the PROs for a license for all music the way it is done for TV. Something they have always refused to do before. Most of the European PROs when calculating how to redistribute this kind of income will largely do so in favour of the most well-known and established artistes leaving indies and lesser known composers on the side.


----------



## Stevie (Feb 14, 2021)

TheAndy said:


> So first, I dont want to use solmecke as my only source of informations. Thats why i posted the link to the original law into my main post. I take my informations out of the original legislative draft.
> I think it is inappropriate to accuse me of wanting to spread FUD. I just wrote down my personal concerns and wanted to discuss this topic. I am opend minded to new perspectives.


Fair enough!



TheAndy said:


> Also, i dont know why you are saying i dont like PRO stuff in general. I am just criticizing this specific point.


This impression arose while reading your initial post. As if you wouldn't trust the GEMA, because it's taking care of the licenses of non-GEMA members. Sidenote: the GEMA is surveilled by the DPMA and is NOT a company.


----------



## Stevie (Feb 14, 2021)

theark1 said:


> If you really want to make some decent money in this industry, you need to do more than "just" composing. It's neccessary to deal with clients as well as with broadcast stations/streaming services. If you want to get the best out of your business, you have to be open minded.
> This also goes for this discussion.


You are totally missing my point. I'm not talking about making relations in the business.
I'm talking about licensing fee dictation from the industry. If you have a PRO behind you (taking the GEMA as an example), it will take care of § 32 UrhG "Angemessene Vergütung", because they are obliged by law.
Companies like Youtube literally don't (didn't) care, it's the wild west. These times are over, unless of course you want to opt out.


----------



## Stevie (Feb 14, 2021)

MarkusS said:


> What will probably happen is that YouTube and similar services will agree to pay a global fee to the PROs for a license for all music the way it is done for TV. Something they have always refused to do before. Most of the European PROs when calculating how to redistribute this kind of income will largely do so in favour of the most well-known and established artistes leaving indies and lesser known composers on the side.


That's not quite true. In fact, they did pay a fee in the past. But the deal was really bad (actually that bad, that the PRS chairman was fired) and it ran out anyway.

The main issue is, that Youtube didn't (and still doesn't) want to reveal what they earn with adds. And that's a basis for the license fee.


----------



## FlyingAndi (Feb 15, 2021)

MarkusS said:


> All this online revenue slips through their fingers and with TV networks like Netflix going streaming only the days of television might be numbered.


GEMA is already collecting (and distributing) revenues from VOD Services like Netflix, Maxdome...


----------



## wonshu (Feb 15, 2021)

The Andy - account created last Thursday Feb 11th just to post this topic here.

Can you say sock puppet? Can you say hyperbole?

I've known these kind of activities (spreading heavily one sided and incomplete information) to rouse up opposition to artists rights since 2011 here in Germany.

I ruined a couple of years for me that I worked to defend our rights against these people while I was still on the board of one of the composer associations here in Germany.


----------



## Nils Neumann (Feb 15, 2021)

FlyingAndi said:


> GEMA is already collecting (and distributing) revenues from VOD Services like Netflix, Maxdome...


But with a extremely bad deal for us composers. Next to nothing compared to TV.


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 15, 2021)

wonshu said:


> The Andy - account created last Thursday Feb 11th just to post this topic here.
> 
> Can you say sock puppet? Can you say hyperbole?
> 
> ...


I find it absolutely mean and impertinent to insinuate that I have something against the rights of artists. I work in this industry myself. Furthermore, I did not create this account to spread misinformation about this topic. 
It has simply arisen, because this topic is currently very explosive. If you have read my posts on this topic, you will notice that I just wanted to discuss my concerns about this. I don't know at all why there are so many people here attacking me personally and accusing me of things.
But to clarify something, I am in favor of FAIR payment and I am GLAD that collecting societies exist, as they guarantee a large part of my income. Please learn to deal with criticism.


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 15, 2021)

Stevie said:


> Fair enough!
> 
> 
> This impression arose while reading your initial post. As if you wouldn't trust the GEMA, because it's taking care of the licenses of non-GEMA members. Sidenote: the GEMA is surveilled by the DPMA and is NOT a company.


I am in favor of FAIR payment and I am GLAD that collecting societies exist, as they guarantee a large part of my income. I have the feeling you have a completely wrong picture of me. As said i just wanted to discuss this topic and i dont want to position myself in anyway.


----------



## MarkusS (Feb 15, 2021)

Nils Neumann said:


> But with a extremely bad deal for us composers. Next to nothing compared to TV.


Was about to say that!


----------



## MarkusS (Feb 15, 2021)

TheAndy said:


> I find it absolutely mean and impertinent to insinuate that I have something against the rights of artists. I work in this industry myself. Furthermore, I did not create this account to spread misinformation about this topic.
> It has simply arisen, because this topic is currently very explosive. If you have read my posts on this topic, you will notice that I just wanted to discuss my concerns about this. I don't know at all why there are so many people here attacking me personally and accusing me of things.
> But to clarify something, I am in favor of FAIR payment and I am GLAD that collecting societies exist, as they guarantee a large part of my income. Please learn to deal with criticism.


Then why not start with explaining how you see it yourself? I think I explained how this affects "direct licensing" IMO (mostly it doesn't) but it seems you ignored the post? What is it you want to discuss exactly?


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 15, 2021)

MarkusS said:


> Then why not start with explaining how you see it yourself? I think I explained how this affects "direct licensing" IMO (mostly it doesn't) but it seems you ignored the post? What is it you want to discuss exactly?


Hey Markus, 
sorry for the late feedback. I have unfortunately overlooked your post, but am very glad that you have brought it to my attention again. 
I fully agree with you, your theorie and thoughts. According to the draft law, Gema can now issue direct licenses without being in contact with the artist. This takes away my ability to decide, to negotiate prices and if necessary to refuse licenses if I don't agree with the use for different reasons.
I also wondered who will receive the royalty in the end if I am not with Gema. The Gema will hardly have the personnel capacity to contact every artist who is not represented there.
What do you think about this?
I also think this: 
" It will be more of a problem for the music users than the composers. For the music user (uploader oder platform) there is no way around this payment since it includes non-members."
....will be indeed a problem. If you overcomplicate stuff people will probibly buy less direct licences.
Also i am not able to get anymore payments of YouTube Content ID Systems like Adrev because videos with my music will instantly getting blocked.


----------



## MarkusS (Feb 15, 2021)

TheAndy said:


> Hey Markus,
> sorry for the late feedback. I have unfortunately overlooked your post, but am very glad that you have brought it to my attention again.
> I fully agree with you, your theorie and thoughts. According to the draft law, Gema can now issue direct licenses without being in contact with the artist. This takes away my ability to decide, to negotiate prices and if necessary to refuse licenses if I don't agree with the use for different reasons.
> I also wondered who will receive the royalty in the end if I am not with Gema. The Gema will hardly have the personnel capacity to contact every artist who is not represented there.
> ...


Hey, no worries! I see what you mean and it's a problem we have here in France, too. Anyone (directors, producers) will use any music for TV believing it is allowed by the SACEM even if they do not have an agreement from the actual composer. It's something that is almost impossible to stop and control. It makes indeed the so-called sync-license obsolete.

I believe here in France this is a legal grey zone, but if a law like this will pass it will become legal. It will affect however only online channels like Youtube, not games for example. I personally license my music a lot for games. But if you make good money by licensing your music for Youtube videos I'm afraid the market might get killed.

Now, one could, of course, "hope" that the royalties collected will be distributed in a way that will be better than the direct license you would have issued, but I have my doubt about this. I'd rather license my music myself for a sum that will allow me to make living writing music.

So who gets the royalties if you leave GEMA? If you opt-out of the program there is a chance your music will still get used by Youtubers anyway since there will be (probably) a global license for all of the other music. How should the users know your specific track is not available to them?

If the GEMA cannot identify the authors they will keep the money.. erm distribute it to all composers. Anyway, they will keep it for years and years and I think it will somehow magically disappear.

What you could do is join an American PRO and wait (for years) to get the royalties from Germany. But it will still not protect you from users using your music on Youtube.

Apparently only very well earning Youtubers have to pay a fee for the use, the rest is paid by the platform.


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 15, 2021)

MarkusS said:


> Hey, no worries! I see what you mean and it's a problem we have here in France, too. Anyone (directors, producers) will use any music for TV believing it is allowed by the SACEM even if they do not have an agreement from the actual composer. It's something that is almost impossible to stop and control. It makes indeed the so-called sync-license obsolete.
> 
> I believe here in France this is a legal grey zone, but if a law like this will pass it will become legal. It will affect however only online channels like Youtube, not games for example. I personally license my music a lot for games. But if you make good money by licensing your music for Youtube videos I'm afraid the market might get killed.
> 
> ...


I did not know that such a similar regulation has already been implemented in France. But very interesting to know.

I hope that Gema will save the money if the artist is not found. Otherwise, that would not be fair to all those who are not registered with Gema or with other PROS.

With this law I have a bit that feeling that one tries the artists to provide more rights, in which one restricts them in a certain way again. 

Nevertheless, we will see the next months, years how this develops and is implemented.


----------



## MarkusS (Feb 15, 2021)

TheAndy said:


> I did not know that such a similar regulation has already been implemented in France. But very interesting to know.


Well, it's not, as I said, it's what they do, not necessarily what they are "supposed to do" by law.

At your place, I'd wait and see how it turns out.

I licensed my music to Youtube users years back but I stopped because my music was all over the place anyway and I wasn't able to trace it. It's only when for example a fan came to me to congratulate me on the use of my music by so-and-so famous Youtuber that I came to know about it. And I'm like: "Interesting, remind me who used that music again"?

Since then I use Adrev for some kind of global license and they trace your music and put commercials on it, doesn't pay much but at least you don't have to worry about the use anymore.

People still write me to ask permission for the use and I think it's sweet they do so and just tell them to go ahead and use it.


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 15, 2021)

MarkusS said:


> Well, it's not, as I said, it's what they do, not necessarily what they are "supposed to do" by law.
> 
> At your place, I'd wait and see how it turns out.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for your thoughts on this!


----------



## wonshu (Feb 15, 2021)

TheAndy said:


> I find it absolutely mean and impertinent to insinuate that I have something against the rights of artists. I work in this industry myself. Furthermore, I did not create this account to spread misinformation about this topic.
> It has simply arisen, because this topic is currently very explosive. If you have read my posts on this topic, you will notice that I just wanted to discuss my concerns about this. I don't know at all why there are so many people here attacking me personally and accusing me of things.
> But to clarify something, I am in favor of FAIR payment and I am GLAD that collecting societies exist, as they guarantee a large part of my income. Please learn to deal with criticism.


The problem is, that I've been dealing with this political issue for 9 years now.

And you've dropped all the talking points that the pirates always make.

I have no more patience for that, especially on a composers forum.

"Uploadfilter" is the Kampfbegriff of the fundamentalists of the copyleftists. And the copyleftists are rousing up the internet and the "creators" around this term. And it seems you're doing the same thing. In 2 languages with a nicely prepared propaganda text no less.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it probably is a duck.


----------



## wonshu (Feb 15, 2021)

Oh and PS:

If you're serious about making money from composing and you're skeptical of the PROs then you haven't really been doing it yet or paying attention. The PROs are the only thing that have our back in support of "us" vs companies using our works.

So all these questions you're raising on behalf of the "indie" and "small" composer really are at the heart of the propaganda of YouTube and Google against a strong and meaningful copyright system. And they have been funding and propagating that message for a decade. I've sat on panels with lawyers from Google. You cannot argue with them, they laugh in your face while not even understanding the fundamental difference between a "band", an "author", master rights and publishing rights. It's complete madness.

So please. Do us and yourself a favour and don't argue against your own interests.


----------



## MarkusS (Feb 15, 2021)

wonshu said:


> Oh and PS:
> 
> If you're serious about making money from composing and you're skeptical of the PROs then you haven't really been doing it yet or paying attention. The PROs are the only thing that have our back in support of "us" vs companies using our works.
> 
> ...


I can see where you are coming from and certainly do not understand why so many people would be against the law as if the lost revenue of a platform like Youtube or any millionary Youtuber would affect them personally.

But having been around for a while myself and having sat also in panels with lawyers from PROs and even directors of PROs and having talked to many professional composers over the years, I find it's not as black and white with the PROs being the nice people making sure composers get well paid and protected while everyone else is just out there to get them. Don't want to go into the details too much as it's OT, just saying, PROs have many problems and the first big problem with PROs in Europe is that they have a monopoly on the collection of royalties and an almost state-like power while being a private association (Verein). Many people actually think it's a state institution. In my experience often the limitations to "protect" artists can sabotage their careers by being overly controlling. Also, the absence of transparency is a huge problem, IMO. But again, it's a vast subject, maybe another time.


----------



## wonshu (Feb 15, 2021)

Yes, those issues need to be addressed within the PROs and the composer community.

They are totally disconnected to the legislation surrounding online licenses and enforcement.

But the lobbyists for big tech are constantly trying to use it in order to weaken our position. It's a tactic.


----------



## Stevie (Feb 15, 2021)

Couldn't agree more on anything wonshu posted. I was at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, when the parliament voted for the article 13/17. I stood out there with many French artists. You won't believe how many of them broke out in tears, when they learnt that we finally have a means to strenghten our position towards big tech companies.

I guess the reason why wonshu and me are so passionate about this is topic, is that we are fighting for it more than over 10 years. 
Another thing you maybe won't believe: but in all these years we heard things like:

- you artists should be marked with a yellow star
- you should all be gased

These for sure were the worst phrases we had to hear/read.
All that, only because the net activists think that we are taking away something from them. Because we all know: everything on the internet is for free, right?


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 15, 2021)

Stevie said:


> Couldn't agree more on anything wonshu posted. I was at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, when the parliament voted for the article 13/17. I stood out there with many French artists. You won't believe how many of them broke out in tears, when they learnt that we finally have a means to strenghten our position towards big tech companies.
> 
> I guess the reason why wonshu and me are so passionate about this is topic, is that we are fighting for it more than over 10 years.
> Another thing you maybe won't believe: but in all these years we heard things like:
> ...


Hey Stevie, finally you are telling me/us why you guys were so passionated about this topic and i really understand and respect your points.
Even tho i am glad that the EU Parliament finally wants to help us artists, i dont agree with every point of the implementation.
But thanks for sharing your thoughts


----------



## lokotus (Feb 15, 2021)

OK maybe someone can help me out for better understanding: 

I understand why Netflix, maxdome etc. are paying royalties to GEMA. But they have movies whose rights (mechanical rights, master use, Performance ...) have been negotiated before upload and public online access. 
What I do not really understand: Why is youtube / Vimeo now responsible to buy or get a licence from GEMA for videos etc whose music rights have not have not been negotiated (unlicensed music use). 
Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the video maker to pay for any license for using the music in his / her video before uploading it to youtube ?
Cheers, lokotus


----------



## Stevie (Feb 16, 2021)

AFAIK, Vimeo was never a problem. It was only Youtube.

Youtube tried to ride on the "we are only a service provider" wave and not a broadcaster.
Basically like a web hoster, who is only providing web space.
But since Youtube is currating the content and also providing ads to the content, this is not at all true. Youtube IS a broadcaster and they have to be treated as such.

And I can only repeat what we have said in the last 2 years:
the current situation gives the user "certainty of the law", the user is not liable for using music he hasn't licensed, because Youtube has to take care of the licensing.

This is pretty much on par with the situation in German TV. Broadcast stations are paying a fee in order to use the whole GEMA catalogue of music (which also includes foreign music, because the GEMA has bilateral contracts with other PROs).

Of course, if some Nazi is uploading a hate video with your music underneath, you can take that video down. But that's a complete different case/law. In Germany it's called Persönlichkeitsrecht.


----------



## TheAndy (Feb 16, 2021)

Stevie said:


> And I can only repeat what we have said in the last 2 years:
> the current situation gives the user "certainty of the law", the user is not liable for using music he hasn't licensed, because Youtube has to take care of the licensing.


I never had the feeling this was actually a problem as there are services like ADREV which claim the videos for you.
So you are pretty much providing new possibilitys to earn money by removing others.


----------



## Stevie (Feb 17, 2021)

Wait, so you would prefer to claim a video and get the whole monetisation instead of getting your proper share and the uploader keeps his share he earns thru ads?

That's exactly the damage this new system avoids. The uploader is not punished anymore for using music he didn't clear the rights for, because YouTube does it for him. I can't see why this would be a bad thing.


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 17, 2021)

Stevie said:


> Wait, so you would prefer to claim a video and get the whole monetisation instead of getting your proper share and the uploader keeps his share he earns thru ads?
> 
> That's exactly the damage this new system avoids. The uploader is not pusnished anymore for using music he didn't clear the rights for, because YouTube does it for him. I can't see why this would be a bad thing.


The old system is really flawed. Afaik there is a deadlock state where when there are 2 claims on 1 video, youtube just keeps all the money and no one else gets paid. 

If they manage to put something in place that _just works™_, and pays out reasonable splits to all parties involved, I'll be very impressed, but also very surprised. 

I'm all for cracking down on those ridiculous tech monopolies (starting with the crazy tax evasion schemes they're all allowed to pull off), but I trust neither the lawmakers to make sensible laws for this, nor the tech monopolies to implement them in a good enough way. I hope I'm wrong, but I genuinely think it's more likely youtube will just say "Fuck it, we'll just block all European IPs and they can buy VPN accounts if they want to keep watching", than them actually coming up with a sensible and effective solution to this problem. I really do hope I'm wrong, because this would most likely be hugely disruptive for a lot of European youtubers that focus on non-english-speaking audiences.


Like for example this recent data privacy stuff where now every website throws up a cookie permission nag-screen, that in practice only makes surfing the web more cumbersome and most people just click "accept all" anyway, because it's the fastest way to get rid of the popup. The original intention was right, but I'm not happy with the implementation. 




A related question: let's assume in the past you've sold anything to a client with "worldwide exclusive rights of use". Now the new law comes to pass, you don't opt out from anything, someone else uses the thing you made in their youtube video, the appropriate license is paid by youtube to the entity that manages this stuff, and they keep the money because you never actively registered that thing you made with them. Isn't this still a breach of contract with your old client who paid for "woldwide exclusive rights of use"? And if so, who assumes the liability for that breach of contract? Is the creator forced to opt out of the new system if they want to be sure that no such situation arises where they legally are in breach of past contracts in this roundabout way? 
In the past I seriously considered joining the VG-Bild, but their contract seemed to me like it creates similar issues, so I didn't go through with it. In practice, it's probably the "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" principle for 99.9+% of cases, but I'd still be very uncomfortable with taking on any legal liability here, even if it's very very unlikely to ever matter.


----------

