Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vimeo Sued For Audio Infringement

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-more-lip-dub-for-you dept.

Social Networks 85

USS_Natas writes "Capitol Records and other labels have sued Vimeo in federal court, charging that the site's emphasis on 'original works' only extends to videos, and that songs are widely used on Vimeo without a license. The plaintiffs hope to prove that Vimeo staffers know about the infringement, since they've been doing it themselves." NewTeeVee has a PDF of the court filing in a Scribd frame.

cancel ×

85 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All these suits and money changing hands (5, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500384)

Where do i get in on this deal? Since rational logic no longer applies, i want to sue someone too !

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (2, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500410)

1) Get a patent/copyright/trademark on passing matter in gaseous form through a sphincter.
2) Sue anyone or anything that farts.
3) Profit !$$$!

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (2, Funny)

Cidolfas (1358603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500428)

Nah, the real money's in owning that sound. Then you can sue every iPhone programmer to make an app, and Apple. You'll be able to buy Steve Jobs.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (2, Funny)

discord5 (798235) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500498)

Nah, the real money's in owning that sound. Then you can sue every iPhone programmer to make an app, and Apple.

iPullMyFinger for the iPhone. Oh I can smell the cash in that one.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500688)

The big winner in the wtf app-space was the even more imaginatively named iFart.

I guess if the purchase of an iPhone made you wonder if maybe your friend was a douche-bag, their purchase of something like iFart takes the question off the table for you.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30500584)

As long as you don't try to own Steve Jobs' farting - his are inaudible.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (4, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500608)

As long as you don't try to own Steve Jobs' farting - his are inaudible.

You mean he's violating the copyright of John Cage? [wikipedia.org]

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30500694)

Linking to Wikipedia removed any subtlety and humor your joke could have had. Leave the link out next time.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30501316)

pretentious much? The link is there so that those of us who didn't immediately understand the reference would be able to figure it out. it's still funny. The link just helped, at the expense of the likes of you, who think that only those who immediately understand should be allowed to get the joke and anyone not good enough to know the things you know should be left sitting and going 'wtf?' Yeah. pretentious and egotistical. Fuck you.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501402)

The link is what made it funny.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30501554)

You said Wiki****! You filth.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (1)

superslacker87 (998043) | more than 3 years ago | (#30503932)

Careful with that. His publishers did actually sue for copyright infringement.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30503962)

Only if Steve Jobs's farts last for about four and half minutes.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (4, Funny)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500972)

If they're inaudible, how do Apple fanatics know when to rush up to him, bend over, and take a deep breath?

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (3, Funny)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502782)

practice.
years and years of practice...

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (2, Funny)

dem0n1 (1170795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30504476)

If they're inaudible, how do Apple fanatics know when to rush up to him, bend over, and take a deep breath?

There's an app for that.

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500758)

Nah, the real money's in owning that sound. Then you can sue every iPhone programmer to make an app, and Apple.

And can we get ASCAP to stop public performances?

Re:All these suits and money changing hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30501280)

Why don't I just patent sound itself? At this point I'm pretty sure I could get it through.

wonder how many holly wood tracks are paid for (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502730)

see Michael Geist and the CRIA 6 billion dollar lawsuit

when they go around yacking its ok but when it is them that do it ....

They have a valid complaint. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30500416)

Just this once, the record companies have a valid complaint.

Re:They have a valid complaint. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500762)

"It's one... In a million...
Chance... Of a Lifetime..."
What?
What do you mean, "public performance?"

Hold your horses, not so clear (2, Insightful)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501064)

TFA makes the point that the record companies already lost a similar suit against Veoh, when Veoh claimed safe harbor under the DMCA. The only reason Vimeo would not be similarly protected is if the labels can show that Vimeo is actively encouraging the infringements of their copyrighted works.

So even if it is clear that lots of Vimeo videos use unlicensed music owned by the labels, it is not clear that the suit is valid.

Re:Hold your horses, not so clear (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501420)

it is not clear that the suit is valid.

They don't care if the suit is valid. They just want to cost Vimeo money so the next guy or company who wants to do something perfectly legal will be afraid.

I really don't think "valid" is a requirement for a record company lawsuit.

Re:Hold your horses, not so clear (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30502224)

Read the entire damned conversation, not just a single post. Your parent was responding to a post claiming that this was a rare instance of record companies having a valid complaint, which is why he was discussing whether or not the complaint is valid. We all know that the record companies have no interest in the validity of lawsuits.

(sorry if this post came off as more dick-ish than I wish, but there's been an upswing in the number of people responding to posts out-of-context lately, and I'm not sure why. Maybe the discussion system is confusing people, or maybe I'm just getting more irritable about it)

Re:Hold your horses, not so clear (2, Informative)

dave87656 (1179347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502776)

They just want to cost Vimeo money so the next guy or company who wants to do something perfectly legal will be afraid.

Can you imagine what the record companies would do in a world where artists marketed their works directly to the customer? There's only one thing to do: make that illegal or at least sue them out of existence.

Nothing good will come of this. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30500526)

While IMO they do have a point (well apart from live concert footage), however I don't see what they want to achieve nobody watches a lip dub on vimeo instead of buying the actual record. So while they will almost certainly win the case, they won't actually win anything and will lose out on free marketing.

preemptive pro-tip, if your going to use the term fair-use [wikipedia.org] please understand what it means first.

The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (3, Interesting)

crovira (10242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500536)

because if they can't make this stick, they're going to disappear.

Vimeo is in a perfect position to request that they DO DO.

Copyright infringement is one of those things that can actually rear up and byte the **AAs in the butt.

By claiming first amendment rights on the ENTIRE file, audio and video and written text of the actual content of the file, they can force the issue that the AA's are, in fact, stepping on each others territory and refuse to comply with their requests until the establishment of a proper rights infringement body.

By setting the MPAA lawyers on the RIAA lawyers, Vimeo can ask that the issue of content creation be settled once and for all in a comprehensive manner.

Since the RIAA and the MPAA are not entitled to settle the matter by themselves, they end up effectively negating each others arguments.

Now of course the difficulty of settling all of this means that the litigation will pend for years, and may very well see the establishment of an ÜberAA to oversee the FAIR distribution of royalties, but at least it i the end of the various AAs.

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (1)

Tom Boz (1570397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500556)

I'm not sure I follow. Nowhere in the article did it mention using first amendment rights, nor do I really think it applies here. It's not debatable whether people were posting copywrited songs; the debate is whether the site was actively encouraging this behavior and thus responsible enough to be sued.

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30501360)

Copyrighted, not copywrited. If anything, copywritten. Your spelling and grammar both fail, bro.

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501688)

If you are using a clip to illustrate your point and merely using vimeo to host your content, then it IS a manner of first amendment rights.

Since vimeo was merely hosting it, they should be afforded the same protection as the television channels which could have done the same.

First, the distinction between streaming and non-streaming are merely a matter of transmission technique interjecting itself between the emission and the reception of a message. As such, they don't really exist.

Next, the difference between the transmission of a message by shouting it " a qui mieux mieux, " or into a microphone (or other recording apparatus,) is specious since the difference is vanishingly small.

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30502114)

If you are using a clip to illustrate your point and merely using vimeo to host your content, then it IS a manner of first amendment rights.

You are factually incorrect. The First Amendment is there to prevent the government from limiting your expression. It has nothing to do with copyrights, nothing to do with whether a private business provides a venue for you to say something or places any terms on your use of that venue, and nothing to do with fair use.

Since vimeo was merely hosting it, they should be afforded the same protection as the television channels which could have done the same

Television stations are responsible for their content, and operate under a license.

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30500892)

I don't know which is more concerning: your complete lack of understanding of the issue or that you were modded up. I guess people just throw a bunch of words together and hope it sounds somewhat reasonable.

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30500906)

The other large issue here is does Capitol Records really want to take on Vimeo of all places in a case like this? It's a bit of a misrepresentation saying Vimeo

"draws most (if not all) of its appeal from, the use of copyrighted works.”

Much of the material on Vimeo is copy-writable, but as to whether the material was actually submitted for copyright is a different matter. There are many videos on Vimeo that contain material that is entirely the property of the original owner, where the same author created both the audio AND video portions themselves (eg: visual portion was recorded using footage from a hi-def handi-cam, iMovie and photoshop, and the audio was composed using GarageBand [apple.com] or something similar). There is an additional large amount of videos that contain only content that was licensed under the Creative Commons. It's not copyright infringement when the uploader is the author and owner of the copyright. Capital Records seems to be in denial that un-copyrighted material would generate any interest, but this is vimeos main draw, the site supports itself using mostly user created works to generate interest with a subscription model (free for light use, but with an option to pay for a greater transfer limit) with some additional revenue from T-shirt sales to cover the costs, it doesn't need anything from Capital Records to survive. Now their is a large amount of copyrighted content hosted on vimeo where the music was copyrighted, but let's say instead of trying to negotiate a deal with Capitol Records, vimeo instead complies with the suit by removing all copyrighted content from the site that Capitol Records owns the rights to. If vimeo is able to comply via removal, Capitol Records has essentially created a large content distribution site that purposefully goes out of its way to make sure that no one sees or hears anything they own the rights to. All the copyrighted material they had the rights to would b replaced with content licensed under the Creative Commons (or something similar), and Capital Records will have effectively destroyed it's own marketing model. Seems kind of counterintuitive to me, but this is Capital Records we'e talking about...

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501454)

There are many videos on Vimeo that contain material that is entirely the property of the original owner, where the same author created both the audio AND video portions themselves (eg: visual portion was recorded using footage from a hi-def handi-cam, iMovie and photoshop, and the audio was composed using GarageBand [apple.com] or something similar)

And that's what really worries the record labels. We can't have people making their own content. It upsets the natural balance of things, where the labels make the content and the rest of us buy it.

If people start making their own content, what's next? People will start cooking their own hamburgers and drinking water that's not bottled and travel on bikes using their own energy instead of buying energy from a gas station.

Next thing you know, some CEO isn't going to be able to afford to give his mistress a new Vacheron Constantin wristwatch and then the whole world goes to hell.

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501068)

By setting the MPAA lawyers on the RIAA lawyers,

You don't think the recording industries and the movie industries (and for that matter, the songwriters and performers and actors and scriptwriters) have already spent years in court deciding that very issue? Those industries have very clear rules for who gets what and how much for each type of performance.

You have a vivid imagination (4, Insightful)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501106)

The MPAA have nothing to do with this litigation, since the video content in question are original works ("lip dubs").

Even if the MPAA were involved, they would have little trouble cooperating with RIAA. If someone were to post a clip of MPAA video redubbed with new RIAA audio, both organizations could sue independently. In other words, there would be no need for them to cooperate in the first place.

You are greatly confused, but I found your post highly imaginative (and terrifically wishful thinking)...

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are in REAL trouble (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501434)

Since the RIAA and the MPAA are not entitled to settle the matter by themselves

You think "not being entitled" is going to stop the RIAA?

Seriously true... (3, Insightful)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500546)

Typical Vimeo user profile: "30-something Caucasian with a HUGE iTunes library, prosumer camera gear and/or a copy of Processing, with a penchant for shallow-depth-of-field effects."

There's non-fair-use copyright-infringement all over the place on that site, and it's absolutely weird that nobody at Vimeo HQ has even batted an eyelash. Really, it's that bad. (I'm a big fan of CC myself, and I think that if people would just stop using RIAA tunes to enhance their own creative works, the problem would solve itself)

Re:Seriously true... (3, Informative)

Suzuran (163234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500726)

The problem is that all music is RIAA/ASCAP music. They have the right to collect royalties for anyone, anywhere, even you. That's why all web radio stations have to pay performance royalties, even on indie or foreign music.

Re:Seriously true... (2)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500778)

So you think they'd still be sued if everybody used freely-licensed music rather than stuff like Lady Gaga or Band of Horses? Doubtful.

Re:Seriously true... (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500920)

So you think they'd still be sued if everybody used freely-licensed music

Yes, because ASCAP will be able to dig up something non-free that was written in the past 95 years and happens to sound like the freely-licensed music, making the free license invalid. We could end up with another Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music [ucla.edu] on our hands.

The Real Reason... (4, Insightful)

bedroll (806612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500570)

I don't find the lawsuit itself particularly interesting. From the sound of it, I believe Capitol will win on at least one count of copyright infringement. The video itself obviously infringes, though I don't see how it does any damage to Capitol's property. Still, their hook is compelling from a legal point of view. Check out this excerpt from NewTeeVee:

The difference, according to Capitol, is that not only has Vimeo not tried very hard to protect copyright owners, but it actively encourages infringement. Capitol alleges that Vimeo’s use of copyrighted material is “not an accident,” claiming that the web site contains “a massive amount of content that features, and draws most (if not all) of its appeal from, the use of copyrighted works.” As a result, according to the complaint, Vimeo is not only aware of copyright infringement happening on its system, but “actively promotes and induces that infringement.”

What's interesting about this is that Vimeo's appeal is the high quality of its unique, user generated content. Just like in the video, the compelling element is not the song but they way in which their employees are lip syncing. I would go so far as to say that it's more interesting than the original video, though I haven't seen that in a decade. Vimeo is one of the user generated content sites that is relatively free from blatant copying. Perhaps copyrighted works are used as background music for these videos, but they are rarely, if ever, the central focus.

That's why Vimeo is being sued. Not because their site is rife with copyright infringement. Not because their site encourages infringement over unique content. Specifically because the community at their site has flourished into one that consistently puts out unique user generated content of high quality. Vimeo is like YouTube with the noise turned down. This scares the pants off the content industry.

As the trend towards Internet Television strengthens the monopolies of the content industry weaken. Quality user generated content is a direct competitor to professionally generated content. The content industry has a long history of using the legal system to ensure that they squash the competition. That's what they're doing here.

I feel bad for Vimeo. They made an innocent video to show what a fun-loving bunch of wacky kids they are at their little Web 2.0 start up. They probably thought that like other various mashups and non-malicious infringements that their video would either fly under the radar or become a success such that the content owner would appreciate the attention drawn to their work and see the positive aspects of it. What they didn't realize is that they've become the nemesis of big business. Big business does not treat its adversaries well.

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500696)

I feel bad for Vimeo. They made an innocent video to show what a fun-loving bunch of wacky kids they are at their little Web 2.0 start up. They probably thought that like other various mashups and non-malicious infringements that their video would either fly under the radar or become a success such that the content owner would appreciate the attention drawn to their work and see the positive aspects of it.

You should read this before feeling too sorry for Vimeo: http://blog.wolfire.com/2009/01/vimeowned/ [wolfire.com]

They deleted a number of indie developer's personal videos showing off their games due to copyright violations (I am pretty sure you are allowed to demo your own game). World of Goo and Fez are probably the two most notable examples to have had their videos pulled without warning.

Re:The Real Reason... (2, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500890)

PAY ATTENTION TO THE FUCKING TERMS OF SERVICE.

In which they absolutely, clearly, in no unfuckingcertain terms:

No commercial use of Vimeo. (simplified for those that don't want to read the legalese.)

Demoing a goddamned game you developed is a commercial use - you're advertising to effect, and that's NOT ALLOWED.

Why, yes, I am a paying Vimeo Plus user. I pay so they can afford to spend the time making sure I don't get a place cluttered with ADVERTISEMENTS. If you want to advertise your game, go to an advertisement service.

Do NOT blame Vimeo for others failure to understand their ToS.

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500922)

The videos were not actually commercial use, they were "design tours" which critique other indie video games. Here's an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAoW9fjKmo4&fmt=22 [youtube.com]

Or as you might put it,
FFUFUUUUUUUUUUU RAAAWR INTERNET COMMENT

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501038)

It's a plug, no matter how you look at it. We don't allow it, for the purposes of legal safety. Ugh, Apple users and their absolute lack of common sense or even the purpose of a community.

Youtube is meant to have all that garbage. Vimeo wants educational and unique things, not REVIEWS.

Please, shut your mouth unless you know what the fuck you're talking about. You're obviously not a Vimeo member, otherwise you'd not be saying the stupid bullshit you're saying right now. We paid to keep that garbage off our site, save on our bandwidth, and avoid any potential legal liability by people going "You don't have the right to broadcast that image!" FUUUU LAWYER RAGE.

Better learn how deep the legal shithole goes, son, before you make more inane comments.

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501074)

Wow, I just got trolled hard. Well played sir, well played.

Re:The Real Reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30501150)

They created the video to generate publicity as you have expertly proven by linking to their blog, which by the way is one of their prime marketing tools.

Re:The Real Reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30500716)

Big business treats its adversaries in the manner most consistent with maximizing profit for the shareholders.

If there was no money to be made in a lawsuit, it wouldn't exist.
Therefore, they are looking to either profit directly from the lawsuit, or use it as leverage to make a deal whereby Vimeo shares its profits.
Said "deal" may consist only of buying controlling share in Vimeo out at a steep discount.

Welcome to Capitalism.

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500782)

Welcome to Capitalism.

Yes, capitalism is the only place where a stronger party tries to take advantage of a weaker party. It never happens in fascism, or communism, or at the local playground.

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500760)

The video itself obviously infringes, though I don't see how it does any damage to Capitol's property.

Since when has that mattered with respect to copyright infringement suites? It doesn't make a bit of difference whether or not your actions cause any real harm, significant or no. The recording industry will still come after you for thousands of dollars in 'damages.'

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

bedroll (806612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502332)

They will need to prove the damages to the court in order for this suit to have any bite to it. I trust that slashdotters are savvy enough to realize that the Copyright industry has yet to give up on the idea of using lawsuits to "send a message." This isn't about a single judgment, it's about a broader attempt to leverage the legal system to maintain the status quo. The evidence of that is in the fact that the suit does not limit itself to that video alone. They are trying to obtain a judgment that would significantly increase the liability of any such site.

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500856)

Whether or not the user-created content is high quality has little to do with whether there's infringement going on. It really looks to me like Vimeo has stepped over the line in terms of the safe harbor provisions -- they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. With the DMCA in its present form, that just isn't going to fly.

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

bedroll (806612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502296)

I think that Vimeo is a target because their content is of higher quality than many of its peers. It's also far more likely to be unique and not to infringe. Yet, the suit seems to imply that the intent of the video was to encourage the kind of infringement that doesn't seem to happen at that site. The quality of the content is in large part because it is unique and largely non-infringing. At least, that has been my experience with that site's content.

Vimeo reaps what they sew and they should have had someone on their staff that was smart enough to know that it would be trouble to make such a video without obtaining permission first. It's clear that the one video is infringing, but the amount of damages they are liable for is largely dependent on whether Capitol can successfully prove that this video encouraged further infringement. I disagree with your take on the DMCA, it provides the only protection for Vimeo here and Capitol is trying to use other areas of Copyright law to circumvent that protection. Capitol has its work cut out for it there.

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501054)

They better be careful, otherwise soon those independent film makers may find out that making equivalently high quality music isn't all that hard, and they don't need to lipsync anymore. Then who will need the RIAA?

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501666)

The compelling element is not the song but they way in which their employees are lip syncing...

Why does it matter what the "compelling element" of the video is? How does that change the fact that they're using a copyrighted work without authorization of the owner?

...I don't see how it does any damage to Capitol's property.

Why does it matter if the copyright owner's property is "damaged"? Infringement isn't stealing - damage to the owner isn't an inherent part of the offense.

What this comes down to is whether or not Vimeo can prevail on a fair use defense. But it should be noted that "fair use" doesn't matter unless there's an infringement. Trying to argue that Vimeo isn't infringing is, on these facts, a doomed task. (I'm referring to the direct infringement by their video, not secondary infringement from their hosting of other infringing videos. Secondary infringement doesn't have a fair use defense, but there is instead the safe harbor provisions in section 512.)

The real (legal) question you seem to be pushing is: should fair use be so broad as to cover incidental infringement?

But your main point, that websites like Vimeo are a legitimate threat to the content industry, cuts the wrong way on that. Why should the law consider the disruption or destruction of an industry, through what are at least technical violations of the law, "fair"?

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

bedroll (806612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502268)

No, I think you read too much into my opinion. I believe that it's a closed case from a legal standpoint. The court shouldn't take much interest in an opinion like mine.

Much of what I wrote is not about the case or what I think the outcome should be, but rather my belief of why Capitol is bothering with such a case. I don't know that the law should be changed to protect Vimeo. I do think there's value in trying to understand the motives of Capitol.

It's important because it will continue. If you or I generate unique amateur content and we lean even the slightest bit too heavily on a copyrighted work then the industry has stated they will go after us. That's the message they're sending in this suit.

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502306)

You make a good point, but I think what bugs the recording industry the most is this bit:

The difference, according to Capitol, is that not only has Vimeo not tried very hard to protect copyright owners,

They're just using the "lip dubs" lawsuit as a club. The thing that the recording industry is really complaining about here that Vimeo is not actively policing the copyrights of other companies. Let that sink in for a moment.

Think about all the recent copyright legislation and brouhaha that's been going on in the last few years: it's all been about the major content corporations trying everything they can think of to make someone else responsible for the enforcement of their copyrights. They already got YouTube to do it for them, so they can now legally go after every video-sharing site on the Internet and ask them, "What are you doing to protect our copyright interests? By the way, if the answer is 'nothing,' we'll see you in court."

Re:The Real Reason... (1)

bedroll (806612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502364)

Very good point. The industry definitely wants sites to do their policing for them. Though, I think that is just the first part of the attack. Think of what we saw with p2p suits. First they demand filtering, then they claim the filtering isn't doing enough, then they shutter the service. I don't see them trying this sort of strategy against Google, since they would have the resources to fight against it. I do see that becoming an issue against other services, leaving them at the mercy of the Copyright industry.

What's going on Vimeo? (3, Informative)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500644)

I can't really feel bad for Vimeo here. Vimeo is well known for removing indie developer's video game videos without warning (see the Wolfire vimeowned post [wolfire.com] -- World of Goo and Fez are two other examples). Vimeo claim this is because of some copyright fears -- even though the developers obviously have the rights to show their own games!

Looks like the tables have turned -- maybe if Vimeo had policed actual copyright violations instead of taking down video game developer's videos they would not be in this situation.

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500930)

Pay attention to Vimeo's Terms of Service. This has even been discussed multiple times in their forums - demoing a game counts as advertising the game - ADVERTISING IS NOT ALLOWED.

Ugh people that don't know the rules just make me so sick.

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (1)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500998)

Ugh people that don't know the rules just make me so sick.

People who make kneejerk comments without thinking make me sick. ;) Watch the video that was pulled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAoW9fjKmo4&fmt=22 [youtube.com]

It's a design tour exploring the themes of World of Goo and the programming techniques behind it, totally unafilliated with 2dboy.

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501030)

Ahh, the joys of a fool that knows not the actual purpose of the site.

NO PLUGGING THINGS IN ANY MANNER - REVIEWS, ETC ARE NOT ALLOWED.

This is made perfectly clear in the ToS and in most forum posts regarding this nature. If you don't like that, get the hell off the site. We want CONTENT. I provide CONTENT by educating people how to make simple workable hydroponics systems. Don't mention brands or any trademarked or copywritten stuff - we don't want that on our site, we don't want the fucking legal liability, what can you not understand?

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30501206)

No amount of tomatos, sweet basil, and other crap will be believable as an alibi when the cops show up at your door for growing pot in the closet of your rental apartment.

I seriously doubt the 'medical use only' excuse will work either. Lolz! [vimeo.com]

Oh wait, you actually asked Sheriff Arpaio to a duel last year? Not the sharpest tool in the shed, I see... Nice! [youtube.com]

Whoa! Multi-million dollar deal? I'd like to see that! Woop! [myspace.com]

So, how long until all of the above go full-private? Anonymous is waiting, numbnutz!

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (1)

Roblimo (357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501832)

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

I'm a paid Vimeo member, too.

Maybe the Magic Money Fairy comes by your house every other week, but he seems to bypass mine. And (shock) most of the people who pay me to make videos want to promote or sell something.

Are music videos promotions? How about live performance videos like this one?: http://vimeo.com/7366434 [vimeo.com]

That's an original song, sung and played by its creators, shot and edited by me. But (horrors!) I mention the name of the band -- and of the nightclub whose owner was 100% happy to have me shooting his house band.

I post very little on Vimeo these days. My "fun" stuff often gets popular enough on YouTube that they send me money instead of the other way around, and other services happily host my promo videos at very reasonable rates. Vimeo is gradually falling off my radar.

I probably won't renew my Vimeo "Plus" membership. Too many limitations, and many other video hosts now offer H.264 quality as good as Vimeo's. Why should I pay where I'm not wanted?

You guys have fun, okay? :)

- Robin

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501790)

I'd point out that, in spite of what Frothing At The Mouth guy wants, video game clips are allowed if they're about your own game. That link you posted, is about some other peoples' games. That's not allowed, even with permission. If you don't like the rule, that's fine, but the rule is, even with permission, you cannot post videos about games that you're not on the dev team for. I'll repeat that, as they word it: "'I have permission' does not mean that you created it!" Additionally, and this is made quite clear several times in their site, and again in the forums, videos about videogames that you were part of making, have to be development videos only, and cannot be trailers. That is, you can talk about the engine in World of Goo, you can talk about your design decisions, talk about why you chose the music you chose. You can't just show it playing and then link to your site so people can go buy it. That's a trailer. In other words, as the other guy said, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THERE'S YOUTUBE OVER THERE. And, just to repeat one last time, you also can't use stuff that's copyrighted by somebody other than yourself, even if it's legal due to fair use, even if they write you a letter granting you permission. They don't care if it's legal, they don't WANT IT. Do you get it yet? That video, as you say, was posted by somebody unaffiliated with 2dboy. That makes it a clearcut 100% total and utter violation of the ToS, period, the end. Yes, that makes their lipsync equally obvious and utter violations of their ToS, since you are not allowed having any music in your video unless you yourself own the copyright to it. But your argument was that they shouldn't have pulled the videos, not that they're hypocrites ;)

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (3, Insightful)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501650)

Exceptions: independent production companies, authors, musicians, non profits, churches, artists, and actors may show or promote the work they have created.

Musicians can use the site to advertise their CD. Movie makers can post their trailers. Artists can post samples of their work. Authors can talk about their new books. BUT FUCK INDY GAME DEVELOPERS, THEY AND THEY ALONE DON'T COUNT.

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#30507358)

Musicians can use the site to advertise their CD. Movie makers can post their trailers. Artists can post samples of their work. Authors can talk about their new books. BUT FUCK INDY GAME DEVELOPERS, THEY AND THEY ALONE DON'T COUNT.

Show me the article in the constitution that give anyone the right to advertize themselves on Vimeo against Vimeo's wishes. Pornography is for example discriminated against all the time, even though it's legal. You just can't put it up on YouTube, you have to go to PornTube or whatever site that wants it. So set up the vimeo of game trailers and stop complaining.

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (1, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500936)

To quote Vimeo's ToS (Since I forgot to do so)

You shall not, without VIMEO's express written approval, distribute or otherwise publish via any of the Services any material containing any solicitation of funds, promotion, advertising, or solicitation for goods or services.

VIMEO may revoke your privileges, terminate your registration/account or take any other measures deemed by VIMEO to be appropriate, in its sole discretion, to enforce these Terms of Service if violations are brought to our attention.

Yes, in fact I did report both of those games to Vimeo as ToS violations. GET YOUR FUCKING ADVERTISING OUT OF MY GODDAMNED FACE. I PAID TO HAVE A SITE WITHOUT ADS - HERE YOU ARE ADVERTISING A GAME. GET THE FUCK OFF OF MY LAWN.

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (0, Redundant)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500988)

You should watch the video in question before typing in caps and spewing profanity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAoW9fjKmo4&fmt=22 [youtube.com]

This is no more and advertisement then a critique of a movie or literary review.

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (-1, Flamebait)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501022)

Perhaps you should have watched the original clips in question - Regardless of the 'review' or 'critique' nature, they were made by the game creators - that counts as an advertisement. NO ADVERTISEMENTS. If you don't understand how we intended this site to work, then don't make any assumptions about it. The guy in your video HAS NO CLUE. If you're going to show the game - you'd better be talking about the technical details of the engine behind it, or how such and such function allows this and that to happen. No reviews, no advertisements. What's so hard to understand about that? Vimeo wants EDUCATIONAL AND UNIQUE VIDEOS - NO PLUGS OF ANY SORTS.

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (3, Informative)

Swift Kick (240510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501244)

Hi!

You may not upload commercials, infomercials, or demos that actively sell or promote a product or service.

        * Exceptions: independent production companies, authors, musicians, non profits, churches, artists, and actors may show or promote the work they have created.

From here [vimeo.com] . Arguably, a 'indie'/solo-guy developer that wants to show his game falls under under this exception.

Can you tone it down just a tad, please?
 

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30515016)

Independent Production Companies means something totally different from "Indie Game Developer."

We've gone over this one hundreds of times in the forums.

I am an independent producer of educational hydroponics videos. "Hey, guise, let's review some games nobody's heard of" is a far cry from that.

Re:What's going on Vimeo? (1)

Roblimo (357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501894)

Heh. A squealer, no less.

It's not as if someone's "advertising" is showing on *your* Vimeo page or in the forums.

Whatever.

If you are the "we" of Vimeo, I want no part of it.

FYI, all music in all videos I've posted on Vimeo is legal.

- R

Lip-sync (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30500816)

They have issues with lip-syncing or lip-dubbing? Who should be upset? These *aa do it themselves and cheat the public out of the their performances.

I think that indicates either hypocrisy or some sort of mental disorder; perhaps both.

In 2009, US pop singer Britney Spears was " 'extremely upset' over the savaging she has received after lip-syncing at her Australian shows", where ABC news Australia reported that "[d]isappointed fans ...stormed out of Perth's Burswood Dome after only a few songs"

In 2004, US pop singer Ashlee Simpson appeared on the live comedy TV show Saturday Night Live, and during her performance, "she was revealed to apparently be lip-synching". According to "her manager-father[,]...his daughter needed the help because acid reflux disease had made her voice hoarse."

During the 2009 Superbowl, "Jennifer Hudson's flawless performance of the national anthem" was "lip-synced ...to a previously recorded track, and apparently so did Faith Hill who performed before her"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_sync [wikipedia.org]

The first sign that the group was lip-synching happened in late 1989 during a live performance on MTV at the Lake Compounce theme park in Bristol, Connecticut. As they performed onstage live in front of an audience, the recording of the song "Girl You Know It's True" jammed and began to skip, repeating the partial line "Girl, you know it's..." over and over on the speakers. They continued to pretend to sing and dance onstage for a few more moments. Then they both ran offstage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli [wikipedia.org]

Public domain & CC don't exist, eh? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30500858)

The use of the Vimeo employee's quote "original video ... not original music" as evidence that the Vimeo is encouraging copyright infringement is a telling reflection on the music industry's idiotic hubris / disconnection from reality. All non-original music is Big Content music?

Meh.

Re:Public domain & CC don't exist, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30500926)

Perhaps you are making a broad emotionally based statement, based on deliberately non-charitable interpretations! Interpreted from the point of EMI who presumably picked the quote, "not original music" used in that sense is "we/Vimeo only care about the originality of the video". Therefore the message being sent is that violations of EMI's intellectual property may or may not be (... are not :p) acted against by Vimeo.

From the point of view of "Let's Bash EMI", "not original music" is interpreted at face value, so "not (original music)" is obviously "(not original) music", which is nothing more than abusing logic to make a point...

So? EMI gave us the DMCA, let them use it (2, Informative)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501000)

Therefore the message being sent is that violations of EMI's intellectual property may or may not be (... are not :p) acted against by Vimeo.

Vimeo cannot act against the use of EMI's music unless EMI gives them cause for action. TFA says that the labels have already lost a similar battle against Veoh, because Veoh smartly defended themselves that they are protected under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. The only reason Vimeo might not be similarly protected is if the labels can somehow show that Vimeo is actively encouraging the infringement (as opposed to merely passively waiting for DMCA takedowns). My point is that the quote in question would seem to be far from being a clear incitement to infringe on EMI's copyrighted music unless one assumes that most non-original music is EMI's music.

BTW, this doesn't mean that I think the labels will necessarily lose. The quote is only one small piece of the evidence which is presented in the lawsuit.

Re:Public domain & CC don't exist, eh? (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502218)

What's the difference between "not (original music)" and "(not original) music"?

Re:Public domain & CC don't exist, eh? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501002)

All non-original music is Big Content music?

I addressed that in my other comment [slashdot.org] .

That's not a valid argument for court, sorry (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30501024)

Even though you are probably correct on a per-work basis, the labels would be laughed out of court if they tried to use it as an formal argument ("Your Honor, we have a portfolio of soooo many songs, no one else could possibly create a new original work not based on one of our songs!"). So I think both of us are right, in a way.

Re:Public domain & CC don't exist, eh? (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#30504088)

The use of the Vimeo employee's quote "original video ... not original music" as evidence that the Vimeo is encouraging copyright infringement is a telling reflection on the music industry's idiotic hubris / disconnection from reality. All non-original music is Big Content music?

Meh.

You really believe that I can't go on Vimeo right now and find a video lipsync with audio owned by Capitol Records? Care to put money on that claim?

No, you've merely misunderstood the point (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#30505264)

You really believe that I can't go on Vimeo right now and find a video lipsync with audio owned by Capitol Records? Care to put money on that claim?

No, I call your one song by Capitol Records and raise you two by EMI. I haven't checked, but I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it that Vimeo is chock full of videos with Capitol Records music. It has nothing to do with the point of my post.

My post has nothing to do with the actual videos which are on Vimeo, and everything to do with the legal filing by the record labels. My post is only about one specific legal argument which is presented in the filing, which claims that because an employee of Vimeo has stated the Vimeo is about "original video, not original music", this means that Vimeo is actively encouraging the infringement of copyrights on Capitol Records/RIAA music. Making that logical equivalence in the legal argument, in my eyes, is making the statement that most/all non-original music is music which belongs to Capitol Records/RIAA.

More clear now?

Can't belive it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30501334)

About a year ago, I uploaded a music video on vimeo. Two weeks later, I received an email from vimeo informing me that my account has been deleted, due to a complaint from the RIA. Don't get me wrong or anything, it was a music mix, that happend to have a few clips from the original video. Regardless if it was fair or not, I really hated their attitude, for deleting the account without any warnings. What I found disturbing was that the email almost accused me of being some sort of thief, quite disturbing for an automated message.
If the ars report is true, I hope they're going down.

The real issue behind this, how to license... (1)

fraktus (632342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30502786)

To me the real problem of this post is that it's just so difficult to find music to use on your video work.

There should be a way to buy, on a reasonable way, the right to add some music to my holiday videos...

There are a few initiatives out there such as Jamendo but we should be able to license more music to be included in home brewed videos... And guess what the industry could even make some profit from that :-)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?