7 ms·

German here. I'm happy that the whole thing is finally over, but also at the same time very angry that GEMA succeeded in getting it their way, once again. I do

by nom 10y ago

German here. I'm happy that the whole thing is finally over, but also at the same time very angry that GEMA succeeded in getting it their way, once again. I don't think it's known how much money really changed hands, but knowing Google and the scale of the situation, I think it's a fair bet that GEMA got a huge sum out of this.

pjmlp 10y ago
I agree, if for music videos I always could find another source GEMA free, the same couldn't be worked around for conference videos. There were quite a few talks I missed, because of GEMA. In the end they won, just like those guys that come around talking about how life is dangerous and accidents do happen. This is how I see GEMA and their "business".
- candiodari 10y ago
  It's sad, as there are also constant complaints about GEMA from artists. They serve themselves only, not artists.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Just like GEZ.
philfrasty 10y ago
(I am not familiar with the GEMA business) „...very angry that GEMA succeeded...“ Why? Don't they collect money for the artists (I guess after taking their cut)? Which seems very hard to do as an individual artist...and very easy if you have a massive artist-base.
- _0ffh 10y ago
  GEMA is widely disliked in Germany, mostly because of it's heavy handed business practices, enabled by historically established political connections and sleaze, and it's internal corruption and unfair distribution of the taken money.
  - sparky_ 10y ago
    I think best comparison is to RIAA in United States, back in 1995-2008 or so during lawsuit years. They have a tantrum and scorched earth policy.
- quakenul 10y ago
  You are completely right in your assumption. GEMA sole function is to collect royalties for songwriters -- not performing artists, just the writers -- and secondary right holders (like publishers) and distribute it to them. They are in fact a non-profit. Every penny they make, they have to distribute to their members (minus operating costs). German people have a very interesting and uninformed bias against GEMA, which has been fueled by the laughable YT/GEMA dispute over the past years. It is easy to see why: GEMA provides absolutely no service to anyone outside of the few thousand songwriters they represent. YT provides a service to millions, for free, and GEMA disrupts that service. GEMA is slow, old and very, very unsexy. YT is here to make everyone and their mom happy. It's a tough sell.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >they have to distribute to their members (minus operating costs). // I don't know if it applies here but you can usually fit a quite sizable fortune through that hole there. In a similar way not-for-profit orgs can pay whatever wage they decide, so are operating costs appropriately ~5% mark that the best charities manage or are they higher? When you say "have to" presumably you mean they're under a legal and enforced obligation. Linking the groups latest accounts here would be interesting I'm sure.
    - _0ffh 10y ago
      Well, a quick search gave me 380,000€ per year for the chairman of the board of directors in 2011. [1] (Do not be confused by the mention of the "Belgian GEMA" in the title!) [1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fartikel%2F34%2F34218%2F1.html&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...
  - _0ffh 10y ago
    There might be an uninformed bias for some people. But there is a very well informed one for many others. Just a few examples... - Gema is a monopoly and has (until now) successfully used it's political power to stay one. The last chairman of the board of directors even boasted that Gema has managed to "avoid useless competition". - 65% of the money Gema passes on goes to 5% of it's members, the full members. These 3400 full members of Gema are also the ones who elect the people who get a job on the board and the committees. Those then decide how the money Gets distributed. Sounds legit! [1] - If a band plays their own songs in a concert, and the organizer has to pay 300€ to Gema for this, which then gives 2.80€ back to the band at the end of the year - that's not even the worsts case. [2] [1] https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fr-online.de%2Fkultur%2Fstreit-um-gema-gebuehren-gema--der-club-der-oberen-3400%2C1472786%2C16472672.html https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=h... [2] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbrunokramm.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F12%2F15%2Fdiezweiklassen%2F&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...
sparky_ 10y ago
Before, YT was completely unusable in Germany. You're right about GEMA, but it's a win for most ordinary people. Unfortunately many other streaming sites are useless still in all of EU. Netflix for example. Only with VPN through United States or maybe Britain do you achieve full value.
- Kequc 10y ago
  Why is it a win for most ordinary people that GEMA is so handsomely rewarded for limiting content? It is not a good thing at all, it emboldens them. Who does GEMA think that they are? You give Netflix as an example, that isn't going to be resolved any time soon following this deal. GEMA shouldn't exist.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    In theory ? Same reason as copyright. The idea behind GEMA is to create a centralized organization for enforcing copyright. Instead of owing royalties to U2 for playing their songs in a cafe, you'd owe them to GEMA, who'd pay them to U2 according to how often they're played (I believe radio playlists are used as metrics to determine payouts). Secondly, any hard drive or other "blank recording media", such as usb sticks has a 10% surtax most of which goes to GEMA. Funny little details that suck about GEMA: 1) assumption of guilt. You have an event, even some birthday parties, you have to prove, by submitting playlists (paying "handling fees" for the privilege) and they may check, also not free to you. 2) one-sided, no government oversight on what is effectively an extra tax 3) they have pissed off just about everyone, including their beneficiaries 4) they're very heavy-handed In practice ? They're just leeches, they don't pay significant amounts to anyone despite getting quite a bit of money in. Even extremely famous artists that were famous for decades get something like a normal pay from the playing of their songs. Everybody hates them, their "customers" (ie. those who play music) and their beneficiaries. GEMA claims their costs are 15% of what is paid in. In practice it certainly looks to me like it's more like 80%. So it really just creates another abusive government monopoly with cushy jobs for a few government favored people. Additionally it creates a few (tiny) free (for the government) subsidies using a privately-levied tax, given to "cultural" institutions like orchestras and other such things nobody goes to anymore. Not enough to prevent them from dying, so even they are not happy.
sparky_ 10y ago
Before, YT was completely unusable in Germany. You're right about GEMA, but it's a win for most ordinary people. Unfortunately many other streaming sites are useless still in all of EU. Netflix for example. Only with VPN through United States or maybe Britain do you achieve full value.
sonium 10y ago
Its entirely unknown who succeeded or not since both sides have agreed not to disclose the deal. I think its likely that Youtube just got it their way but the non-disclosure is part of the deal so GEMA can still present it as a victory, and does not have to answer questions about their relevancy.
Arwill 10y ago
Its not for free for the viewer either: >clips flagged as containing Gema-protected tracks can now have adverts automatically added to them to recompense the songs' creators. So now you will have to watch more adverts than people from other countries. And the presentation of the song will worse too, i wonder how artists will like their clips being butchered and filled with adverts. Youtube for some time now places adverts in middle of clipps too, that just ruins the whole experience.

by nom 10y ago

pjmlp 10y ago

I agree, if for music videos I always could find another source GEMA free, the same couldn't be worked around for conference videos. There were quite a few talks I missed, because of GEMA. In the end they won, just like those guys that come around talking about how life is dangerous and accidents do happen. This is how I see GEMA and their "business".

candiodari 10y ago
It's sad, as there are also constant complaints about GEMA from artists. They serve themselves only, not artists.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Just like GEZ.

philfrasty 10y ago

(I am not familiar with the GEMA business) „...very angry that GEMA succeeded...“ Why? Don't they collect money for the artists (I guess after taking their cut)? Which seems very hard to do as an individual artist...and very easy if you have a massive artist-base.

_0ffh 10y ago
GEMA is widely disliked in Germany, mostly because of it's heavy handed business practices, enabled by historically established political connections and sleaze, and it's internal corruption and unfair distribution of the taken money.
- sparky_ 10y ago
  I think best comparison is to RIAA in United States, back in 1995-2008 or so during lawsuit years. They have a tantrum and scorched earth policy.
quakenul 10y ago
You are completely right in your assumption. GEMA sole function is to collect royalties for songwriters -- not performing artists, just the writers -- and secondary right holders (like publishers) and distribute it to them. They are in fact a non-profit. Every penny they make, they have to distribute to their members (minus operating costs). German people have a very interesting and uninformed bias against GEMA, which has been fueled by the laughable YT/GEMA dispute over the past years. It is easy to see why: GEMA provides absolutely no service to anyone outside of the few thousand songwriters they represent. YT provides a service to millions, for free, and GEMA disrupts that service. GEMA is slow, old and very, very unsexy. YT is here to make everyone and their mom happy. It's a tough sell.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >they have to distribute to their members (minus operating costs). // I don't know if it applies here but you can usually fit a quite sizable fortune through that hole there. In a similar way not-for-profit orgs can pay whatever wage they decide, so are operating costs appropriately ~5% mark that the best charities manage or are they higher? When you say "have to" presumably you mean they're under a legal and enforced obligation. Linking the groups latest accounts here would be interesting I'm sure.
  - _0ffh 10y ago
    Well, a quick search gave me 380,000€ per year for the chairman of the board of directors in 2011. [1] (Do not be confused by the mention of the "Belgian GEMA" in the title!) [1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fartikel%2F34%2F34218%2F1.html&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...
- _0ffh 10y ago
  There might be an uninformed bias for some people. But there is a very well informed one for many others. Just a few examples... - Gema is a monopoly and has (until now) successfully used it's political power to stay one. The last chairman of the board of directors even boasted that Gema has managed to "avoid useless competition". - 65% of the money Gema passes on goes to 5% of it's members, the full members. These 3400 full members of Gema are also the ones who elect the people who get a job on the board and the committees. Those then decide how the money Gets distributed. Sounds legit! [1] - If a band plays their own songs in a concert, and the organizer has to pay 300€ to Gema for this, which then gives 2.80€ back to the band at the end of the year - that's not even the worsts case. [2] [1] https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fr-online.de%2Fkultur%2Fstreit-um-gema-gebuehren-gema--der-club-der-oberen-3400%2C1472786%2C16472672.html https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=h... [2] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbrunokramm.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F12%2F15%2Fdiezweiklassen%2F&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...

sparky_ 10y ago

Before, YT was completely unusable in Germany. You're right about GEMA, but it's a win for most ordinary people. Unfortunately many other streaming sites are useless still in all of EU. Netflix for example. Only with VPN through United States or maybe Britain do you achieve full value.

Kequc 10y ago
Why is it a win for most ordinary people that GEMA is so handsomely rewarded for limiting content? It is not a good thing at all, it emboldens them. Who does GEMA think that they are? You give Netflix as an example, that isn't going to be resolved any time soon following this deal. GEMA shouldn't exist.
- candiodari 10y ago
  In theory ? Same reason as copyright. The idea behind GEMA is to create a centralized organization for enforcing copyright. Instead of owing royalties to U2 for playing their songs in a cafe, you'd owe them to GEMA, who'd pay them to U2 according to how often they're played (I believe radio playlists are used as metrics to determine payouts). Secondly, any hard drive or other "blank recording media", such as usb sticks has a 10% surtax most of which goes to GEMA. Funny little details that suck about GEMA: 1) assumption of guilt. You have an event, even some birthday parties, you have to prove, by submitting playlists (paying "handling fees" for the privilege) and they may check, also not free to you. 2) one-sided, no government oversight on what is effectively an extra tax 3) they have pissed off just about everyone, including their beneficiaries 4) they're very heavy-handed In practice ? They're just leeches, they don't pay significant amounts to anyone despite getting quite a bit of money in. Even extremely famous artists that were famous for decades get something like a normal pay from the playing of their songs. Everybody hates them, their "customers" (ie. those who play music) and their beneficiaries. GEMA claims their costs are 15% of what is paid in. In practice it certainly looks to me like it's more like 80%. So it really just creates another abusive government monopoly with cushy jobs for a few government favored people. Additionally it creates a few (tiny) free (for the government) subsidies using a privately-levied tax, given to "cultural" institutions like orchestras and other such things nobody goes to anymore. Not enough to prevent them from dying, so even they are not happy.

sparky_ 10y ago

sonium 10y ago

Its entirely unknown who succeeded or not since both sides have agreed not to disclose the deal. I think its likely that Youtube just got it their way but the non-disclosure is part of the deal so GEMA can still present it as a victory, and does not have to answer questions about their relevancy.

Arwill 10y ago

Its not for free for the viewer either: >clips flagged as containing Gema-protected tracks can now have adverts automatically added to them to recompense the songs' creators. So now you will have to watch more adverts than people from other countries. And the presentation of the song will worse too, i wonder how artists will like their clips being butchered and filled with adverts. Youtube for some time now places adverts in middle of clipps too, that just ruins the whole experience.