Vimeo Sued For Audio Infringement 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.
All these suits and money changing hands (Score:5, Funny)
Where do i get in on this deal? Since rational logic no longer applies, i want to sue someone too !
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
The link is what made it funny.
Re: (Score:1)
Careful with that. His publishers did actually sue for copyright infringement.
Re:All these suits and money changing hands (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
practice.
years and years of practice...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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?
They have a valid complaint. (Score:1, Interesting)
Just this once, the record companies have a valid complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Chance... Of a Lifetime..."
What?
What do you mean, "public performance?"
Hold your horses, not so clear (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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. (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 bet
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
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 recor
Re: (Score:2)
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 mak
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
You think "not being entitled" is going to stop the RIAA?
Seriously true... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Seriously true... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 advertis
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I just got trolled hard. Well played sir, well played.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 argu
Re: (Score:2)
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 generat
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point, but I think what bugs the recording industry the most is this bit:
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
Re: (Score:2)
What's going on Vimeo? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 ow
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's going on Vimeo? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Public domain & CC don't exist, eh? (Score:1)
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.
So? EMI gave us the DMCA, let them use it (Score:2, Informative)
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 questio
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
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 (Score:1)
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 Vim
The real issue behind this, how to license... (Score:1)
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