• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Copyright, Daily Blog, Featured

YouTube Loses Court Battle in Germany

Submitted by Chris McDonough on April 25, 2012 – 6:00 AM5207One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F04%2F25%2Fyoutube-loses-court-battle-in-germany%2FYouTube+Loses+Court+Battle+in+Germany2012-04-25+10%3A00%3A21Chris+McDonoughhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5207

YouTube is no stranger to navigating the difficulties imposed by the conflict between copyright protection and its business model.  While in the US, courts have ruled that YouTube’s lack of actual knowledge regarding the video users post provides a defense against lawsuits, other countries have different ideas.  Germany in particular has ruled against YouTube in the past and it looks like the Hamburg court has done it again.  The court has ruled that YouTube needs to be more active in hunting down pirated videos and preventing itself from being used as a premiere vehicle for copyright infringement.

The plaintiff, GEMA, is a German equivalent of ASCAP that represents more than 60,000 artists.  They have been in conflict with YouTube since 2009 when they sought to charge fees for the use of their music which YouTube claimed were impractical.  GEMA sued YouTube on the basis of twelve songs, and the Hamburg court found that YouTube had failed to meet its duty to combat copyright infringement and ordered YouTube to remove any videos that include those seven songs and install a filter that would prevent users from uploading those songs in the future.

GEMA is quite clear that it is not really interested in punishing YouTube, but rather wants to use this court case and the threat of future cases as a tool at the negotiating table.  GEMA wants YouTube to pay a fee for use of the works that’s based on the number of views each video receives and the advertising revenue generated, while YouTube feels that such a model is too burdensome and wants a fixed price arrangement.

I tend to be leery of people using the threat of a lawsuit as a tool because it prevents laws from attaining their intended purpose.  However, this may be a case where YouTube and its parent Google “hold the key to the jailhouse door,” as they might just have to behave in good faith at the negotiating table.  On the other hand, perhaps this is a case of GEMA ruthlessly extorting YouTube for cash they don’t deserve.  As I’m obviously not privy to the financial details of YouTube or GEMA, I can’t tell you which side is being reasonable here.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Chris McDonough

Chris McDonough is a 3L at the Washington College of Law, and is currently unsure of his final destination, having interests in human rights, employment law and IP. He received his undergraduate degree in English from UC Irvine, and likes science fiction and watching lots of TV (in what little spare time he has these days).

Chris McDonough has written 32 posts for the IPB.

5207One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F04%2F25%2Fyoutube-loses-court-battle-in-germany%2FYouTube+Loses+Court+Battle+in+Germany2012-04-25+10%3A00%3A21Chris+McDonoughhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5207 »

  • YouTube Loses Court Battle in Germany – American University Intellectual Property Brief | Living in hamburg says:
    April 25, 2012 at 6:57 AM

    [...] YouTube Loses Court Battle in GermanyAmerican University Intellectual Property Brief Germany in particular has ruled against YouTube in the past and it looks like the Hamburg court has done it again. The court has ruled that YouTube needs to be more active in hunting down pirated videos and preventing itself from being used as a …Hollywood Wins One, Loses One OverseasHome Media MagazineGerman Court Rules Against YouTubeCIO Today YouTube: Publisher or service?Consumer Tech TechSpot -Ultimate-Guitar.Com -The Associated Pressall 109 news articles » [...]

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Zediva Appeals from Adverse Ruling Should Buying Designer Goods Be a Crime? United Kingdom Reviews Copyright Laws Experience Has Made Me Rich, and Now They're After Me, 'Cause Everybody's Living in a Material World:  An Argument for Madonna Fifty Shades of Grey Sues Smash Pictures over XXX Adaption of the Steamy Series Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan Beatles Wheelchair Trademark Blocked Golan's Mystery: What's Wrong with Copyrighting Public Domain Works? Canadian Supreme Court Voids Pfizer’s Viagra Patent Playstation 3 Jailbreaking an Open Source of Controversy Confessions of a “Jailbreaker”
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License