tsg
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by tsg on Mar 4, 2018 19:43:30 GMT
On the topic of whether we are a "real" union or not, I believe this organization can be very influential. Much like the SAG (screen actors guild). Actors are not employees of the studios, but are contracting with the studio and it's producers to work together for a common purpose. A Motion Picture in the SAG analogy, and engaging and vital content in the YouTube scenario. In the case of the SAG, however, there are multiple studios. Not one monopoly of power as is the case with YT. This union will help level the playing field for all creators and may even bring out some YT competition to break that monopoly.
|
|
|
Post by monikamaier on Mar 4, 2018 19:48:13 GMT
Yes. But in Germany they are close. Total dependency on a single customer is a very strong attribute of a so called "false self employment". If the authorities rule that YouTube creators are in fact employees in reality, then the YT executives will be prosecuted personally AND of course the company has to pay the skipped social insurance fees. Not long ago a large insurance agency, the MEG AG, went through exactly that. The authorities ruled that the 150 "self employed" agents were in fact employees by nature, and MEG had to pay all those social insurance fees (about 20% of the income) for several years, plus a 720.000 € (roughly 800,000 $ US) personal fine for the owner of the company. The company had to declare bk shortly after. But I don't think we should attack from that angle. It would kill YouTube and our channels with it. Jörg, I think that this wouldn't happen. First, YT is not a german company. How would german laws apply to them? Second, even if you had a german court rule against YT, how would they have any means to make them obey?
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 19:56:40 GMT
YouTube is pretty well protected from that as they are an open network, not agents and have no exclusivity. Agents acquire IP rights and resell them, or acquire jobs for their clients, when you do that you have to cover social security. Even if that would happen in Germany regarding YouTube it would be Künstler Sozial Kasse (KSK) - that's 3% of paid revenue - damaging, but not killing. However - But, as YouTube doesn't resell the rights (we retain ownership), it's viewed as providing a service from a taxation purpose so the only taxes that apply are sales taxes, or value add taxes - VAT (in Germany MwSt). Until now YouTube avoids dealing with VAT in the EU by transacting from Ireland - this will change soon due to some new EU VAT regulations, but it won't lt have any real effect as it is just moving money back and forth.
In any case, with tax audits, I've been part of testing the assumption that a network is not to be viewed as an agent, or employer and thus not required to pay to the KSK. The German tax authorities agree with the assumption so social fees and dues don't apply.
Ergo, it's not even a line that one could go down, to not mention that Jörg is right, one shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 20:02:02 GMT
Oh German law applies all right. Any transaction to a partner in any given country happens under local law (in this case Germany). It's even so that views generated in a country are subject to local legislation. The basic principle of laws applied to Internet business is that it's not the country of origin that matters, but the country of destination. For all of us it also means that when we have viewership in country X and that country has law Y, we have to be aware that law Y applies to us.
And how would German court decisions be applied? The same way it was all those years when YouTube couldn't display music content in Germany due to the court case with the German music collection organisation GEMA. A Hamburg and Düsseldorf court ruled that YouTube had to block, or pay and block they did (well they had already blocked, but that's another story).
|
|
|
Post by monikamaier on Mar 4, 2018 20:03:02 GMT
Sorry for maybe getting a little off-topic, but - as we're already talking about laws - there's one thing I really don't understand: Why do Social Media companies, like Twitter, obey to the german Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (german internet censoring law) even if this means they need to hire german-speaking censors - which will diminish their profits? I mean, what could possibly happen if those companies simply decided to just ignore it? German laws don't apply to other countries, so Germany trying to sue them (especially in the US, with their free speech laws) would never be successfull.
Again, sorry if this is off-topic, but maybe discussing the laws concerning out issue is not the worst idea...
|
|
|
Post by monikamaier on Mar 4, 2018 20:05:33 GMT
Spartacus, thanks for replying:) But again, how would that law be enforced? We can't invade the US and seize property? What if those companies just ignored german court rulings?
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 20:09:25 GMT
Sorry for maybe getting a little off-topic, but - as we're already talking about laws - there's one thing I really don't understand: Why do Social Media companies, like Twitter, obey to the german Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (german internet censoring law) even if this means they need to hire german-speaking censors - which will diminish their profits? I mean, what could possibly happen if those companies simply decided to just ignore it? German laws don't apply to other countries, so Germany trying to sue them (especially in the US, with their free speech laws) would never be successfull. Again, sorry if this is off-topic, but maybe discussing the laws concerning out issue is not the worst idea... Edited to answer the second question. German law applies to any viewership and partnerships in Germany - the German State can very well sue if the platforms don't comply and impose sanctions, fines and even in the worst case forbid the network from operating in Germany. This is not theory, many foreign companies have been sanctioned, fined, or even banned from operating in the republic for breach of law. Also this is not a German thing, this applies to all countries. Why do you think Youtube has such a huuuuuge legal department ;-) In order to operate in a country you need some kind of local legal unit - this is the unit that would be sued and liability travels up to the owner. Normally you play it safe and sue both the local unit and the owner. This is one of the areas where the EU is incredibly important - by EU law any foreign Internet operators have to set up a legal EU presence, this presence has to maintain the money they make in an orderly tax compliant way. In other words the money they make here is taxed here. As EU law applies to all member states, we can impose jurisdiction across EU borders, and there's no problem going after YouTube (Google). They were recently fined billions for unfair completive practices and they paid it alright.
|
|
|
Post by monikamaier on Mar 4, 2018 20:14:36 GMT
Spartacus, thanks for clarifying! I simply couldn't imagine that Germany has the power to enforce questionable laws even against US-based internet giants...
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 20:16:31 GMT
Spartacus, thanks for clarifying! I simply couldn't imagine that Germany has the power to enforce questionable laws even against US-based internet giants... I added some info so that i really answers your question...
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 4, 2018 21:35:08 GMT
Well, YouTube pays German YouTubers. So for these people German tax laws apply. If the authorities decide to fine YouTube or simply send them a tax note, then YouTube has to pay or else face execution of the title. This means that the German government will seize every asset they can get a hold of in Germany and internationally. YouTube has offices, bank accounts and employees in Germany and in Europe (especially Ireland), where German titles are enforced. Collectors will seize all that. Then they will issue warrants for all of the executives. As soon as they show up in Europe, Interpol will arrest them.
With Germany's influence in the EU, the same thing will happen in all of the other member states. The EU is YouTube's biggest market, far bigger than the US and Canada combined.
|
|
|
Post by monikamaier on Mar 4, 2018 21:57:06 GMT
Spartacus, Jörg - thank you again for clarifying! I really didn't know that.
Now to something completely different:
I believe it's important to open up a new YT channel for the union, because
(1) Keep different topics nicely separated - avoiding unnecessary confusion when asking other channels to join (2) This could avoid YT taking sanctions on the Slingshot Channel (you know they are closing down channels as they please)
And Jörg, I'd really love to see you post an update video on the union's progress - I feel it's about time you speak to those who are willing to support you.
|
|
|
Post by monikamaier on Mar 4, 2018 22:24:29 GMT
Additionally, please consider opening up a Patreon/Kickstarter/GoFundMe for the Union, connected to that new channel. Probably Google's competitors might be interested to anonymiously drop a dime;)
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 4, 2018 22:40:18 GMT
Additionally, please consider opening up a Patreon/Kickstarter/GoFundMe for the Union, connected to that new channel. Probably Google's competitors might be interested to anonymiously drop a dime;) There isnt a goal which requires funding yet as far as I am aware, although I would support it if there were
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 4, 2018 22:42:01 GMT
Can I point out that while we are discussing IF youtube could be classed as an employeer, I think that we can all agree that it is heading in that direction by many counties definitions. It is down to lawyers and legal teams to decide where to draw the line but even heading in that direction is a major threat to Youtube and online content creation in general.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 22:51:01 GMT
I think that we can all agree that it is heading in that direction [becomin an employer] by many counties definitions. I don’t think we can agree on that at all - YouTube is far, far from being an employer by almost every definition in most all countries. They have no exclusivity. They don’t demand a work effort. They do not direct, or instruct a specific work effort. They don’t pay for a work effort. Although we’re all here because they restrict our work to some degree, this is a passive effort that doesn’t contain the pre-requisite management definition to become an employer.
|
|