RSS
Twitter
Confused French Indie Labels Sue Google
from the let's-work-on-the-logic-bit dept
It appears that the collection society for indie record labels in France, SPPF, is a bit confused about how the internet works. It's sued Google over videos on YouTube, claiming that while Google had removed a bunch of videos that were using songs covered by SPPF, many of those songs had returned! Of course, that's probably because other people uploaded them. But rather than put the blame where it's due (on the uploaders), SPPF has just decided to sue Google. Even worse, SPPF never bothered to sign up for Google's totally free program that lets artists upload content they want protected so that Google can match the content and either stop it from being uploaded or allow the copyright holder to profit by putting ads on it. So, basically, SPPF is complaining that Google won't do what Google absolutely would do if SPPF only used the tools Google has provided. And, claiming that SPPF shouldn't have to be proactive on this makes no sense either -- because how is Google to know whether the use of the content is authorized or not? This lawsuit seems like folks at SPPF were just too lazy to actually understand how Google/YouTube work and so they sued.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Hehehe.
I'm betting the Riaa exec's are frothing with envy at the SPPF's balls to try something like that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"how is Google to know whether the use of the content is authorized or not?"
Simple - the assumption by google / youtube is that everything is good until they are told it isn't. It should be the other way. That would eliminate all of these issues.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Did you actually just vocalize an endorsement of "guilty until proven innocent"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
99% sure AC was being facetious. Gotta let that sarcasm detector warm up a little before you use it. :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And this is why nobody takes those cheese-eating surrender monkeys seriously.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Except the RIAA knows (just barely) that they'd get ripped apart if they tried something like that themselves.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
[sarcasm]Guilty until proven innocent? Of course! If you let that "innocent until proven guilty" crap fly, then the terrorists win![/sarcasm]
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
It's the internet. Poe's law is in full effect, and I don't mean the one about how long poems should be.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And because it's France, SPPF could very well win.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
no, not at all. More like "prove the rights you have, or don't post". Third party material assumed protected unless otherwise shown.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
"no, not at all. More like "prove the rights you have, or don't post"."
Yes, yes at all. That's the burden of proof being on the accused. Action should not be taken based on accusations, and this whole "severity of the accusation giving weight to our response" idiocy had better come to a close pretty effing quick or we're all in trouble.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ah once again AC
you have shown how absolutely stupid you really are.
"Simple - the assumption by google / youtube is that everything is good until they are told it isn't. It should be the other way. That would eliminate all of these issues."
Do you even have the grey matter to take this position to its logical solution?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
correction
I ment "logical conclusion" not "logical solution" though logical solutions exist, just not in AC's world apparently
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Correction
logical conclusion is what I ment to write
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
oops
impatience is a vice I don't have time to fix. Sorry for the double correction
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
oops again
Sorry, I meant "double vision", not "double correction" though vision can be corrected with glasses
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: oops again
oh god, just shoot me now...
i *did* mean double correction, and i *am* sorry for that
not for the double correction, but the erroneous apology
...does this make sense?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Woweeewewow!
Raybone, you're effing losing it meng! I hope you took a pill or got some sleep or drove the porcelain school bus to get yourself straight! Funny Shit!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
SPFF = modern day Nazi
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Do not fall for this gross PR stunt.
If you check your archives, the same SPPF sued Vuze/Azureus. It made the headlines and they newer showed in court. So the case was filed.
SPPF represents a bunch of French indies (one being Carla Bruni-Sarkozy's label). They think they have to make this kind of announcement to prove they exist against a rival French "syndicate" SCPP.
This is of the upmost "ridicule" but this is ...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Eh My name was hijacked Ha Ha
Im flattered
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Ah once again AC
You are making a couple of really big errors (beyond the typos, which I make too often myself!).
"innocent until proven guilty" is something for a court of law. It doesn't extend to commercial rights. In Commercial Rights, it is basically "you have them or you don't". There isn't any "innocent" here, it's "yes I can, or no I can't", nothing more.
The current DMCA regime pretty much allows rights holders to get screwed over all the time. Anyone can use their material, and the rights holder has to go out and police the entire internet to find their content and report it as "not permitted". In most of these cases, if the original poster was required to show that they have the right, the material would never get posted. In the end, the rights holder gets screwed, their material gets misused, they have to pay to police and protect their rights, and they have no legal recourse to recoup those losses.
It sucks to be a rights holder, it is expensive to protect your property, and everyone else has incredible leeway to abuse your rights without you having any way to get back at them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
yeah, no posting unless the record company says it's ok...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment