Slashdot Mirror
Vimeo Held Covered By DMCA Safe Harbor
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."
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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".
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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 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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
I clicked on this story because I was interested in the original topic, but this whiny, defensive stuff is way more interesting.
Yeah, definitely
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That's just it. We need to grab the low hanging fruit of the executives at Capitol and Atlantic Records and them off.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!