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 Held Covered By DMCA Safe Harbor

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the safe-for-now dept.

Media 51

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a recent 56-page decision (PDF) in Capitol Records v. Vimeo, LLC, a federal court in Manhattan found Vimeo to be covered by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, rejecting Capitol Records' arguments that it was not entitled to the statute's "safe harbor". However, Vimeo is not yet out of the woods in this particular case, as the Court found factual issues — requiring a trial — as to 10 of the videos on the question of whether they were uploaded at the direction of Vimeo users, and as to 55 of the videos whether Vimeo had actual knowledge, or red flag knowledge, as the existence of an infringement."

cancel ×

51 comments

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

They're all the same (-1, Troll)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 10 months ago | (#44927525)

Atlantic Records, Capitol Records

YOU SUCK [wikimedia.org]

Re:They're all the same (1, Funny)

interval1066 (668936) | about 10 months ago | (#44927683)

Atlantic Records, Capitol Records

YOU SUCK

Talking about grabbing at the low-hanging fruit...

Re:They're all the same (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 10 months ago | (#44931599)

That's just it. We need to grab the low hanging fruit of the executives at Capitol and Atlantic Records and them off.

Re:They're all the same (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 10 months ago | (#44931987)

er.. "and cut them off"

Re:They're all the same (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 10 months ago | (#44935015)

Hey, a dual troll mod for bashing a media company. Slashdot is full of paid-for losers, I see.

Backstory? (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 10 months ago | (#44927543)

So what's the backstory behind this for those of us who dont read obscure blogspot blogs.

Re:Backstory? (3, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44927841)

So what's the backstory behind this for those of us who dont read obscure blogspot blogs.

Obscure? You calling my blog obscure?

There is no "backstory". Just read the front story.

Re:Backstory? (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 10 months ago | (#44927883)

I'm not reading a 58 page pdf and the linked blog story is no longer than this summary.

To save others the work, evidently Vimeo employees uploaded videos of people lipsyncing to tracks owned by the labels. Vimeo is trying to claim Safe Harbor protection because they had no way of knowing users were uploading infringing material.

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44927927)

Okay... so should I have heard of Vimeo? I guess they're a video sharing site or something?

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44927967)

Vimeo is a U.S.-based video-sharing website on which users can upload, share and view videos. It was founded by Jake Lodwick and Zach Klein in November 2004. They left the company in 2007 and 2008 respectively. The name Vimeo was created by Lodwick, as a play on the words "video" and "me." Vimeo is also an anagram of the word "movie". I guess it's like Youtube.

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44928999)

While we're at it, you are aware that there's an invention called television, and on this invention they show shows, right?

Re:Backstory? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44927971)

Actually the blog post is 20 words shorter than the slashdot summary, and links to the slashdot post for more details. It looks like NewYorkCountryLayer either realized that Slashdoters don't read the story or had his paralegal quit and is looking for us to summarize the 58 page PDF for him.

Re:Backstory? (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44928259)

1. I don't have a paralegal to work on my blog. I do all this stuff myself.

2. The guiding principle of Recording Industry vs The People [blogspot.com] since its inception in 2005 has always been that it is designed for readers who are smart enough, and serious enough, to read the actual litigation document rather than let someone else tell them what it means.

3. The blog post doesn't link to Slashdot for "more details" it links to it for "Commentary & discussion".

4. Most Slashdotters, I have found, do read the story and litigation document... not every word, but enough to form their own opinions.

5. And no, thanks, I am not looking for you to explain to me what the decision says; I read it, and I know exactly what it says.

What about... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44928879)

the importance of the decision to move forward in that trial to the arguments that WB knowingly violated the DMCA by abusing Vimeo's automatic takedown tool? That seems much more important than the issue regarding the possible liability of Vimeo for employees acting as agents of the company when they uploaded videos themselves.

This might be first time we see someone (or some corporation?) punished for abuse of DMCA. Thoughts? Does it have teeth? Is it a non-issue since it was a tool and not an actual DMCA filing? The judeg is letting it go forward but I've not seen anyone with a legal background chime in on this and would genuinely like to hear any opinion you have on the issue.

Thank you.

Re:Backstory? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44929861)

1. He wasn't saying your paralegal edits your blog. He was saying that the point of your blog is to fish for random internet commentators to summarize cases for you so you don't have to read them yourself or hire someone to read them. And he was joking. ;)

2. Overlord, etc. are not talking about your site and do not care about your site. They are admonishing the person who posted this Slashdot story for posting a story with no details and no link to a supporting article. The guiding principle of Slashdot is to post stories which summarize and link to useful news articles.

4. You have not done any sort of scientific study on Slashdot readers, so save your "I have found"s. I would bet money that your claim is false anyway.

5. If you are inclined to write a brief article explaining what you know I think there's a lot of people here who would like to read that.

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44938267)

It's a badly written short story with zero summarized background and you're a douchebag.

Get over yourself.

Re:Backstory? (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#44928129)

I'm not reading a 58 page pdf and the linked blog story is no longer than this summary. To save others the work, evidently Vimeo employees uploaded videos of people lipsyncing to tracks owned by the labels. Vimeo is trying to claim Safe Harbor protection because they had no way of knowing users were uploading infringing material.

Close. The one's employees didn't go near at all are those dismissed under the DMCA. All the ones any employee touched in some way, even as little as clicking a "like" button, put on a favorite list or whatever are the ones going to trial because there's doubts as to Vimeo's awareness of infringement. The really brief summary is: If you're looking for DMCA protection, the content is poison. Don't look at it, don't touch it, don't discuss it. Have automated content monitoring and user flagging, but don't go looking on your own and don't mention any specific cases even in internal emails. You have to go very far out of your way avoid knowing what is going on to be punished for "willful blindness".

Re:Backstory? (3, Insightful)

Darkinspiration (901976) | about 10 months ago | (#44928297)

It does seem insane. I mean how can the court not see that this case is clearly about killing vimeo and by extension video sharing sites. How can they expect all employees to be 100% diligent. It's never going to happen. If the only option to adhere to Safe Harbor is to have google class content filter Youtube is going to be the only game in town in the US.

Re:Backstory? (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | about 10 months ago | (#44928463)

Maybe it's not about killing Vimeo, but rather making it "play nice" the way YouTube has: Pay for sync licensing of the music and support the licensing costs with ads.

Re:Backstory? (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44928529)

Maybe it's not about killing Vimeo, but rather making it "play nice" the way YouTube has: Pay for sync licensing of the music and support the licensing costs with ads.

In my experience, their primary goal in every instance is to put people out of business, if at all possible. YouTube has been 'playing nice' with them for many years, but they haven't dropped the pending case.

Re: Backstory? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44930943)

Which sucks and constantly are being abused by copyright holders.
I have 60 videos on YouTube. All made by me with content made by me.
Still I get copyright infringement notices and when I challenge them, I get rejected and my score/rating as a YouTube user goes down. At the moment 15 of my videos are infringing some copyright according to them which is a complete lie. But they get the money for the ads.

I have been very careful not to do anything wrong, not using any content I haven't created myself, video and audio, and still I get accused all the time and called a thief. I am just a nobody who likes video editing so it is ok to screw me over. And I can no longer appeal the infringement accusations because some of them has been rejected and I am now unpopular/ unwanted.
The music companies are apparently still huge assholes who deserve that we pirate their content.
The biggest shitheads at the moment are some German nazis called "dance all day". Who the hell they are, I don't know but google them and YouTube and you will see that the system in YouTube are broken.

Re: Backstory? (1)

anubi (640541) | about 10 months ago | (#44931889)

We need to start asking our congressmen, especially in public at these "town meetings" what they intend to do about all this litigation the DMCA is stirring up.

Prohibition was unpopular. It got repealed. DMCA is no different. It can be repealed as well.

I guess we need to let the record companies sue enough people to make themselves so unpopular that any politician failing to remove DMCA will not see another term in office.

And it follows the Game Plan exactly (-1, Troll)

PhuckIndian (2943641) | about 10 months ago | (#44928553)

YouTube is owned by Google. Google is owned by the Israeli zionist behind the government, wall street and all these big corporations. (Google's founders are Jewish, remind you)

Re:And it follows the Game Plan exactly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44929349)

Heil Hitler!

Re:Backstory? (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44928589)

It does seem insane. I mean how can the court not see that this case is clearly about killing vimeo and by extension video sharing sites. How can they expect all employees to be 100% diligent. It's never going to happen. If the only option to adhere to Safe Harbor is to have google class content filter Youtube is going to be the only game in town in the US.

The legal fees alone are the killer. Veoh won every round, but had to go out of business due to the legal fees [blogspot.com] .

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44928625)

It does seem insane. I mean how can the court not see that this case is clearly about killing vimeo and by extension video sharing sites.

It probably does. The judge is probably at least as smart as you are, and has definitely seen more shady businessmen trying to abuse the law than you have. But the court has to rule based on the facts and the law, not on which side "deserves" to win. And that's a good thing, because you really don't want judges to have that kind of power.

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44935737)

Close. The one's employees didn't go near at all are those dismissed under the DMCA.

I wish you people would learn written English, the idiotic grocer's apostrophe threw me. "The one's employees"... the one what's employees? Does not compute! Then I realized you're either not a native writer or are woefully undereducated. You do not use an apostrophe there, moron! Jesus fucking Christ!!! If it isn't a possessive (the one's employees are the employees employed by that company) or a contraction What the fuck is that apostrophe doing there!

A well written paragraph takes seconds to read. A sentence written by an ignorant fucking high school dropout will take minutes. I do not appreciate your wasting my time and aggravating me. If you can't write English, shut the fuck up and go watch lolcats on youtube, you don't belong at a nerd site.

Re:Backstory? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#44937519)

I'm not reading a 58 page pdf and the linked blog story is no longer than this summary. To save others the work

Reading is work? I take it you're a tl;dr, aka "aliterate"?

"The man who does not read has no advantage over a man who cannot read." -- Mark Twain

I have no idea why your OP got modded up (although the comment I'm responding to did deserve an upmod). Probably another aliterate (there are a lot of them here, they're easy to spot: "There car's are over they're")

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44928035)

Haha, way to drive people away :P

Re:Backstory? (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44928157)

Haha, way to drive people away :P

Well he shouldn't call something "obscure" just because he's too lazy to read it, and wants someone else to tell him what it said.

Re:Backstory? (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | about 10 months ago | (#44928385)

The blog post linked from TFS is a brief (~70 word) summary of the recent development with no links to other posts on your blog for the background on the story, only the big PDF of the decision.

Re:Backstory? (1, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44928487)

The blog post linked from TFS is a brief (~70 word) summary of the recent development with no links to other posts on your blog for the background on the story, only the big PDF of the decision.

The decision, IMHO, gives you what you need to know about the facts of the case in order to understand the significance of the decision. 56 pages is enough reading in my view, for our purposes. If you want more you can go on PACER and get hundreds of additional pages from the case file.

Re:Backstory? (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | about 10 months ago | (#44928613)

No... I think people want something in between 70 words and 56 pages.

Re:Backstory? (0)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44928627)

No... I think people want something in between 70 words and 56 pages.

Oh. OK. How many words do they want?

Re:Backstory? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#44929299)

No longer than a good resume.

Inverted pyramid style (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#44929309)

They want the inverted pyramid style [wikipedia.org] that AP, Reuters, and the like use: summary up front, then crucial details in the "body", then a "tail" of more specialized information. This way, one can stop reading at any point and still get as much detail as he wants.

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44930847)

162. 161 words is way too little, and 163 is just way too much and they will stop reading.

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44932795)

People are asking for a precis, we both know it. Now you just seem churlish. Even if I could understand half the legalese in the ruling I still wouldn't be prepared to wade through 56 pages of it when a single page would be enough to summarise the decision and offer some opinions about the implications. This isn't meant as a slight on your long history of good works, but after so long in the community here one would think you'd do more to maintain your reputation; as it stands, frankly, you're not doing yourself any favours by being obtuse.

Re:Backstory? (2)

nickybio (1458399) | about 10 months ago | (#44928423)

I clicked on this story because I was interested in the original topic, but this whiny, defensive stuff is way more interesting.

Re:Backstory? (2)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44928455)

I clicked on this story because I was interested in the original topic, but this whiny, defensive stuff is way more interesting.

Yeah, definitely

Re:Backstory? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 10 months ago | (#44929259)

Leave it to a lawyer who can't summarize the story in 1 sentence and has to resort to 58 pages to discuss the issue.

Re:Backstory? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 10 months ago | (#44929457)

Hey buddy, you watch your mouth when you're talking about NYCL!

Re:Backstory? (0)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44929567)

Hey buddy, you watch your mouth when you're talking about NYCL!

All riggghhhhtttt. Thanks Amicus :) I always wanted to have a big brother :)

Re:Backstory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44929789)

Your blog is extremely obscure.

Re:Backstory? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#44942375)

Maybe to you 4channers it is, troll, but NYCL is well known and greatly respected here at slashdot. So go back to reddit and leave us grownups alone.

BTW, that -1 moderation you have is a bit ironic, isn't it?

Re:Backstory? (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44942463)

Maybe to you 4channers it is, troll, but NYCL is well known and greatly respected here at slashdot. So go back to reddit and leave us grownups alone.

Thanks, bro :)

Re:Backstory? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#44946411)

No problem, Ray. You're one of my 3 favorite lawyers, the other two being the lady who handled my divorce and the man who handled my bankruptcy.

Re:Backstory? (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 10 months ago | (#44950875)

You're one of my 3 favorite lawyers, the other two being the lady who handled my divorce and the man who handled my bankruptcy.

Great that you found good people to handle those important things.

Direction Q (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44929227)

"as to 10 of the videos on the question of whether they were uploaded at the direction of Vimeo users"

Should that be "..at the direction of Vimeo management"? Are these the videos that Vimeo employees uploaded?

youtube is the undisputed king of piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44930529)

and vimeo will never dethrone them

Vimeo is way better than youtube anyhow (1)

Cito (1725214) | about 10 months ago | (#44930829)

Especially for mobiles

lot of music/concert and many other content on youtube will be blocked and say "unable to play on mobile devices please login from PC to view"

but Vimeo it doesn't matter you can view all content from mobile devices, from overseas, in states, etc and there are no region blocks or content blocks based on device. if you can view it on desktop you can view it on mobile.

I stopped trying to watch music videos on youtube, and enjoy many uncensored "explicit" videos and rare hard to find videos on vimeo without ads, blocks, etc.

course I use adblock so I never see ads anyhow, but still nice

so annoying when you try to watch a video on youtube and get the "Video blocked on mobile device" message.

plus Vimeo has many higher quality options on some videos, there are a few uploaded in resolutions higher than 1080 on vimeo. And many many short film directors use vimeo before going to youtube.

Lots of exclusive shorts that directors flock to such as the creepy "Abe" short film

https://vimeo.com/64114843 [vimeo.com]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>