Slashdot Mirror
Vimeo Sued For Audio Infringement
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.
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 -- 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.
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.
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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
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.