It seemed like the lawsuits were finally over for the Google owned website. That hope of finally being legally in the clear was recently dashed when French music label collecting society SPPF sued YouTube for €10 million.
There was an interesting development from the hugely popular video sharing site. A report from Billboard says that SPPF has sued YouTube saying that over 100 music videos from their catalogue appeared on the site. All this after a previous episode where SPPF demanded the content be taken down (which, consequently, were taken down) only to have the video’s be re-uploaded by their users.
YouTube issued a statement saying that SPPF didn’t use their content ID system which prevents others uploading similar content.
While using the content ID system may have helped, one user discovered at one point that the system is far from perfect. Regardless, one might wonder if the fact that the labels decided not to use the system would hurt them in any legal case against the site.
Of course, there was another interesting tidbit BillBoard uncovered:
Meanwhile, SPPF also unveiled results for 2008, with a 14.9% increase in income to €14.5 million ($20.2 million). The rise was mainly due to various exceptional items and to an increase in music video income, thanks to the growth of digital terrestrial television (DTT) channels.
If there was an argument to be made that having an unauthorized video uploaded on YouTube will do harm for record labels, the fact that their revenues increase will not likely help that argument.
Of course, SPPF is far from the only entity to sue the website. Last year, French Broadcaster TF1 sued YouTube for €100 million. That was on top of the Italian Media Companies half a billion Euro lawsuit. Lawsuits, at one point, became so frequent that some observers renamed the site “SueTube” given that the site seemed to be, at that time, attracting a large number of lawsuits.
[Hat tip: Open Rights Group]
Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.
Related Posts
- YouTube Sued by Italian Media Company for Half a Billion Euros
- Dr. Dre To Pay $1.5 Million For Copyright Infringement
- Reports – French Broadcaster Sues YouTube for 100 Million
- YouTube deletes 29,549 videos at request of Japanese broadcasters, copyright groups
- Guns N’ Roses Sued for Copyright Infringement
Loading ...
Labels will beg and crawl and bribe to get their songs on the radio, and their videos on YouTube.
The music videos is a promotional tool for artists, so God save the soul of fans that make it available to millions of people when they’re interested.
If you’re waiting to catch it on MTV, that’ll be a long sit.
Labels are full of sh!t!
Correction:
Labels will beg and crawl and bribe to get their songs on the radio, and their videos on YouTube
Is of course supposed to be:
Labels will beg and crawl and bribe to get their songs on the radio, and their videos on TV.
this case change the future of video streaming future !
SPPF certainly are imbeciles, like all the other suers (no pun intended).
They’re French, what do you want?
Trust me Americans are not better.
The videos on you tube is a good promotion.
Discovering new artist that you never knew about.Listening to their music and getting intrest in them and at the end buying musicians cd or going to the concert or cinema.
Whats their problem once again.
Whats the point of the internet.
Chill out .
It’s not about who is helped or harmed by people posting files – it’s about who has the legal right to do it.
Although there is a “performance right” of sorts, the prominent circumstances in the problem is that YouTube is sued even though YouTube did not specifically cause the posting and the SPPF could have taken down the video on demand.
*The second ‘is’ should be ‘are’.
The SPPF doesn’t work – it is incredibly easy to spoof. Like all of their businesses, especially in youtube and blogger, Google makes it hard and laborious. to remove content that is infirngeing – it is in their interest to have the content posted as it increases ad traffic. Not many would go to youtube just to see someones home videos.
It just so happens that Google’s financial interests match the anti-propertarian philosophy that they have promoted.
“The SPPF doesn’t work …”
Then they fail as a business.
IS that what I typed? Sorry I meant the content ID system! The content ID system is ridicously easy to circumvent, it’s a joke they implemented in a day so they could avoid lawsuits.
Surely you realize that it is too late to repeat that.
huh? You crack me up.
That content ID system argument is rather useless now if you haven’t noticed yet.
YouTube is only a web post box, albeit for videos. To sue them has the same logic as me suing Smith and Weston because Bonnie and Clyde shot someone with a gun made by them.
Now THAT is funny, yet makes sense. It is what people want to put up, and if it includes free advertising for people, then why wouldn’t someone want their stuff up there? FREE advertising that all the have to do is demand that users make sure they put in copyright BS to say it belongs whoever it belongs to.
Considering the fact that it’s NOT YouTube’s fault at all that the stuff is up there, why sue YouTube? They want to make a buck, I bet. That’s all! I heard a while ago a judge sued these people for over $50 bucks for pants and a jacket, or something. Some dry cleaners. That’s just wrong! Just like this!