To start the presentation (only in german) please click here.
(A current browser is required for correct representation.)
Von einem, der auszog, das Fürchten zu lernen… published on Wikimedia Deutschland. Translation as Can Beethoven send takedown requests? A first-hand account of one German professor’s experience with overly broad upload filters published on Wikimedia Foundation (San Francisco/USA).
The YouTube channel Labeltest serves as a test-site through which I conduct random samples, whether companies raise claims (Content-ID-claims) “) on audio-files made accessible on this domain. A documentation of such unwarranted claims on recordings digitized by cc0.oer-musik.de, raised by companies (e.g. Fox Entertainment/Naxos of America, Deutsche Grammophon/UMG, WMG/PLG UK Classics, WMG/Documents etc.), can be found here (a current browser is required for correct representation) or further down the page. Objections to these Content-ID-claims are being raised on the grounds that the digitized recordings, provided by cc0.oer-musik.de and archived by the Hochschule für Musik und Theater München and the Bavarian State Library, are no longer subject to copyright protection according to German law.
SPIEGEL ONLINE's request request to the Berliner Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten mbH (GVL) was answered by the in-house counsel, stating that a digital reprocessing of an older recording has no prolonging influence on the term of copyright. "Expiration of copyright protection refers to the original recording." Reprocessing does not renew copyright or justify a new term of protection.
Youtube’s (Google’s) use of Content-ID-claims de facto implements an ›upload-filter‹, a controversial process meant to prevent copyright violations. The intended effect is pitted against a potential complication or hindrance of legal use during preventative scanning of upload-content, due to defective or faultily operating filters (especially in cases of classical music). In addition, the question of what constitutes legitimate use is diverted from jurisdiction to technology and managerial decision-making, thus opening the door to hardly manageable malpractice. What’s more, automatic scans (used to implement upload filters) are unable to differentiate between copyright infringement and lawful quotation in academic practice, which already compromises the dissemination of musicological (and musical) knowledge and the availability of Open Educational Resources on YouTube.
A distinctive feature against the backdrop of the act on telemedia is YouTube’s accessibility: § 5 of the act ("Allgemeine Informationspflichten" = duty to supply information) orders the availability of data allowing for quick/fast electronic contact and immediate communication, including email-addresses. However, an inquiry to an email-address stated in YouTube’s imprint is answered as follows: “Dear Google-user, please take into account that due to the large amount of inquiries, emails sent to this address (email@example.com) cannot be read or registered” (April 2018). Neither do email-forms in Google-help, mentioned and linked to in the automated reply, enable contact with YouTube staff members. These factors effectively prohibit the solving of contentious issues. In addition, YouTube blocks the restoration or selection of CC-licenses for videos for which "Content-ID-claims" have been waived.
Previous tests and results: