BUMA/STEMRA, the Dutch equivalent of the RIAA wants bloggers to pay €130 per year for embedding Youtube videos on their site. The fees are ridiculously more higher if you have more than one video per year on your site. They don't make any distinction between commercial and non-commercial websites.
No, legally it doesn't make any sense either.
Hilarity ensues.
Any videos, or just videos which contain music for which the people they represent have copyright?
This reminds me of a story out of the US, where the government is considering using the Federal Trade Commission to force bloggers to disclose "financial interests", ie when they get free stuff from a company to review.
This rule, interestingly, does not apply to other media outlets, such as fashion magazines. Gosh I wonder why that is...?
Reminds me of the AP suing someone for embedding an AP youtube video. That the AP put on youtube. :lulz:
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 08, 2009, 09:25:00 PM
Any videos, or just videos which contain music for which the people they represent have copyright?
Yes.
Afaik they "represent" the big leading global record industries in the Netherlands.
to "represent" meaning something like buying $64k office furniture (http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2009/10/bumabonzen_hebben_kantoorstoel.html) while extorting restaurants and bar-owners with baseless legal scare letters.