Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Courts Your Rights Online

Vimeo Sued For Audio Infringement 85

Posted by kdawson
from the no-more-lip-dub-for-you dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vimeo Sued For Audio Infringement

Comments Filter:
  • by appleprophet (233330) on Saturday December 19, 2009 @05:34PM (#30500644) Homepage

    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:Seriously true... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Suzuran (163234) on Saturday December 19, 2009 @05:54PM (#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.
  • by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Saturday December 19, 2009 @06:34PM (#30500890) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Saturday December 19, 2009 @06:46PM (#30500936) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Mathinker (909784) on Saturday December 19, 2009 @07:01PM (#30501000) Journal

    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.

  • by Swift Kick (240510) on Saturday December 19, 2009 @07:58PM (#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?
     

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 20, 2009 @12:50AM (#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)

  • by dave87656 (1179347) on Sunday December 20, 2009 @04:23AM (#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.

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow

Working...