GEMA or the modern slave trade
The copyright business is to intellectual production the same atrocious deformity as slavery was to the physical integrity of people in the past centuries. Slave traders then did not realize they were engaging in a degrading practise, they thought in earnest they were in their right to own somebody else's time, body, freedom, etc.
The Valladolid debate was a genuine introspection of society to question its moral right to enslave the populations of the new world. The sincerity of the trial is attested by the surprising ruling that, after all, they did not have such a right; this prompted the deportation of black people instead who, not being recently "discovered", suffered from the prejudice it was rightful to keep enslaving them. Thankfully, things evolved and now everybody realizes this was terribly wrong.
I am quite convinced the many people working for so-called "intellectual property" agencies, or those defending them, do not realize neither that they are the modern day equivalent of the past slave-drivers, that they will be regarded by the future generations as a shameful and barbaric lot who insult humane dignity.
Ranking high in the list of those who stain our moral standards today is the German version of copyright money collection agency, the Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, or GEMA. Its name—the Society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights—already betrays this is something that belongs with the past. But it takes time to get rid of such things.
Because Google refused to pay GEMA 0.12€ per click for every video on which they claim copyright, they brought them to court and won the case.
It is not even that Google denies their copyright, in fact every user of YouTube in Germany encountered several times a notice of withdrawal on suspicion of infringement, in my case, even on private videos from friends circulating a recording of their wedding.
It all comes again to the question whether an open platform should be liable for the spirit of the alternative worldview of "keep everything locked, or pay for it". Is Google responsible for what someone uploads there? The court case says yes. Or pay for it.
No wonder with such appalling decisions from the German justice (this was in Hamburg) that groups like Die Piratenpartei acquire more and more visibility and weight.
Just for curiosity, it would be interesting that Google severs its services altogether in Germany, like they sometimes do in other hostile countries such as China. What would be the effect on the economy of the most dynamic country in Europe, merely removing the search engine?
But to justify a bit more my accusation, since I know some would see it exaggerated: I am for plurality, everything should be tried, that is the only way to always give the best mechanism a chance to get to work. I therefore am sympathetic with someone wanting to sell something. This also means, however, I think one should not be forced to buy something he does not want to (don't misread or caricature that). The open-content approach must be given a chance. It has the right to be pursued, alongside with proponents of the closed-approach of copyright. (!?)
Now, GEMA or their counterparts can come and destroy any such attempt. They can upload their copyright content on an open platform, and sue it for that. That's what they do with Google (never mind who actually uploads the video; I'm sure they would if nobody would do it for them). Or they can enforce its shut down, with or without court order, for that matter, as the megaupload case demonstrated. This is bullying, this is not respecting my freedom to go for an alternative paradigm, regardless of their own vision of how things should be.
How is this related to enslavement? I can walk outdoors and independently of my own will, listen to a street performer, or hear some music in a bar, but if it is GEMA copyrighted, I am forbidden to later repeat the song in public (unless I pay for it). I am forcefully tied, intellectually, to them. I must somehow ensure my brain will not remember the content faithfully enough or I should make sure not to reproduce it later, either with my lips, skill forbids, or with a recording device which technology now makes available to everyone. If I upload on an open platform like YouTube a private video with, as a background, this song I've heard in the street, I become illegal, pretty much like it was illegal for a slave to read or write [1]? Just like today, it was tolerated, though, mainly because of the difficulty to ensure this trifle, but in principle, this was still illegal and could be punished at will.
So, the mere fact that I exist and pass by makes me (my intellectual baggage, culture, knowledge, memories) their property. They can tax me even if I want to have nothing to do with them.
How am I even supposed to know the material is theirs, in the first place? In fact here they made it simple: Whoever wants to playback or perform music in public in Germany will become, as a rule by doing this, a customer of GEMA. This is even what you get right away when Googling for this sordid company:
I could not find a clearer definition of what qualifies. As they are not able to maintain a proper database, given the whole thing is essentially immaterial anyway, they resort to such outrageous in-your-face generalization.
Is this not, in any case, an obvious case of blatant violation of my freedom of self-determination? If I want to perform music (which?) in public, I will become, automatically, as a rule of doing this, their customer. No negotiation, it's their terms, I don't have the choice, I don't have a say.
This sort of nonsense in a similar context prompted Charlie Veitch to warn passers-by that a retailer owns the photons that shines off the atoms in there and that you are not allowed to film inside.
In practise of course, there is little risk (yet) I would get any trouble if I whistle a GEMA copyrighted song at a bus stop, but, first, this is a matter of principle, and, second, at a scale where this makes a difference—like in the Google case—the same nonsense rules and results in asphyxiation of the service, and subsequent extortion.
They don't enslave only the customers. They also enslave the artists, despite the fraudulent argument that they ransack in their name. Can you play that? In Munich, I can't. Never mind that one gets there from the genuine owners of the songs, who embed the video on their own websites.
So, if you want to have a look at what a modern slave trader is, forcefully imposing an immoral and shameful ruling in society, abusing people's fundamental rights to dispose of their own mind in the way they want, look for people working for GEMA or equivalent agencies, or their supporters, meet them, or visit their website, you will see they look like ordinary people. Just like slave drivers did in these sorry times where one could possess the whole body along with other basic rights, such as performing music without becoming someone's customer.
Links
- German Collections Society Trying To Collect For Performances It Has No Rights Over, on what qualifies as falling under GEMA jurisdiction: everything. Thanks to Lars Clausen for the link.
- Posts in Google+ (same post but different comments): [2], [3]
- Use the Internet for what it was meant to: bypass a faulty node.