The end of VIVA

Probably almost nobody will miss the music TV station VIVA which has stopped broadcasting at 14:00 today.

On December 1, 1993, VIVA started as the German competitor of the English speaking MTV Europe. It was created as a platform for German music in particular. Shows were presented by Stefan Raab, Heike Makatsch and Mola Adebisi. Jessica Schwarz, Matthias Opdenhövel, Klaas Heufer-Umlauf, Oliver Pocher, Nils Bokelberg, Sarah Kuttner, Enie van Meiklokjes, Charlotte Roche and Tobias Schlegl were all well-known to VIVA.

In 2004, the station was taken over by Viacom, who also owned the competitor MTV.
After MTV had switched to pay-TV, VIVA also aired programs from MTV as reruns from 2011 on. Since 2014, VIVA has stopped broadcasting 24 hours a day, sharing its channel mainly with Comedy Central. From 2:00 to 14:00, VIVA barely reached its target audience.

Viacom said VIVA had been profitable, but Viacom wanted to focus on its three core brands MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

"The station, launched as a German alternative to MTV, shaped the youth of the 90s and 2000s. VIVA was the YouTube and Spotify of a generation of young people who paid internet access per minute" the media magazine DWDL.de said. The farewell to VIVA came in an unimpressive way: no live program, but only the canned "VIVA Forever" show.

/TWA

Due to "Article 13": Will YouTube be deleted next year?

One topic is trending at YouTube Germany these days: the draft of a new Copyright Directive of the European Union which could force YouTube to stop its business in Europe. At least this is what some people say.

Currently YouTube Germany proposes the query "youtube will be deleted" already when only typing "y".

This pessimism is based on a blog post of YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki from October 22, 2018 which says:

"... the EU Parliament voted on Article 13, copyright legislation that could drastically change the internet that you see today.
Article 13 as written threatens to shut down the ability of millions of people – from creators like you to everyday users – to upload content to platforms like YouTube. And it threatens to block users in the EU from viewing content that is already live on the channels of creators everywhere."

At November 2, the German YouTube channel WissensWert ("worth knowing") released a video with the title "Why YouTube will not exist anymore next year". In this video it pretended that in some months all channels that we like will be deleted except a few of some big firms.

The truth is: article 13 is part of the Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market. But it is still in discussion within the institutions of the European Union. It is still unclear which one is becoming the final version.

For example, the Council's text of Article 13 regulates that an online content sharing service provider shall obtain an authorization from the rightholders in order to communicate or make available to the public works or other subject matter. Where no such authorization has been obtained, the service provider shall prevent the availability on its service of those works and other subject matter.

YouTube recognizes that it would be impossible to obtain authorizations from every rightholder. Thus YouTube would risk to get sued by rightholders. One way to prevent this would be to delete European YouTube channels – except some bigger ones in which YouTube trusts.

The consequence of this scenario would be that most of music clips will disappear from YouTube so that they cannot be embedded on COVER.INFO anymore.

YouTube started the #SaveYourInternet campain to invite creators to make videos about this topic:

"Article 13 could create enormous unintended consequences for everyone. We need to come together for a better solution."

When online content sharing service providers use filters to block uploaded content which might use copyright-protected works, this can lead to censorship. The filter may block content even when you cite a work in a permitted way, for example if you want to show a photograph in order to discuss it. But the truth is that upload filters would be nothing new. YouTube already uses them; they are called "Content ID".

If social-media corporations retired from Europe to avoid liability, there probably would be no contemporary platforms anymore to express opinions.

While there are superficial petitions on change.org and many YouTube videos at the same level to spread dysphoria against the European Union, a speaker of European Commission designated the criticism on article 13 as nonsense at November 6, as German online magazine heise.de reported. The European Union is not against the Internet, he said. The position of rightholders should be strengthened and their content better rewarded.

Because of its scope, it is very important to carefully find a proper wording for the new Copyright Directive. The European Commission welcomes proposals.

/TWA

New plagiarism lawsuit about "Stairway To Heaven"

Randy California, a member of Spirit, a psychedelic rock band from Los Angeles, always pointed out that the riff in the intro of the 1971 rock hit "Stairway To Heaven" by Led Zeppelin has similarities with the band's instrumental piece "Taurus" that he had written in 1966 and released in 1968. But Randy California never had the money to file a lawsuit against Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, the Led Zeppelin members who wrote "Stairway To Heaven". He died in 1997 while swimming in the sea with his son in a rip current after saving his son's life.

Finally Randy California's trustee Michael Skidmore prompted Jimmy Page and Robert Plant before a US district court in 2016. He wants to achieve that Randy California will be credited as one of the authors of "Stairway To Heaven" so that his heirs get some of the royalties. It is estimated that the heirs would get around 40 million US dollars. Although Robert Plant visited a Spirit concert in 1970 on which, he says, he did not listen to the music but was drinking at the bar, the Led Zeppelin members won the lawsuit because the court stated substantial differences between the two songs.

An appeal court in San Francisco just ordered a new trial about this case because the judge in the first court misinformed the jury about the copyright protection of short sequences of tones. Another problem was that the judge did not introduce the original recordings of Spirit and Led Zeppelin but only considered the sheet music which was played anew for the lawsuit.

/TWA