Vimeo Pressured Into Setting Up Its Own Content ID

from the via-audible-magic dept

Thu, May 22nd 2014 12:59pm — Mike Masnick

The legacy copyright industry has been pushing for years to make automatic fingerprinting and blocking a requirement under the law. In fact, many lawsuits from both the record labels and movie studios have argued that automated fingerprinting is already a requirement under the law -- though, those legal arguments have been consistently rejected. For example, in the record labels lawsuit against Vimeo for allowing "lipdub" videos, the labels have been claiming that Vimeo's failure to offer an automated system for filtering out copyright-covered works amounted to "willful blindness." While the court rejected that argument wholeheartedly, noting that the law makes "clear that service providers are under no affirmative duty to seek out infringement," it appears Vimeo has decided to do so anyway.

On Wednesday, Vimeo announced its new Copyright Match tool. Like basically every non-Content ID filter out there, this one relies on technology from Audible Magic, which doesn't necessarily have the best reputation. Vimeo seems to bend over backwards to insist that it will allow fair use... but it appears they're still taking a "takedown first and review later" approach to it. If your work is blocked, you can claim fair use, and then wait for Vimeo to determine if they agree with you or not -- even if the copyright holder never complained about the work.

In other words, it's another step towards permission culture, rather than allowing the sort of permissionless creativity and innovation that is so important today.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: content id, contente match, copyright, creativity, fair use, filters, permission
Companies: audible magic, vimeo

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Mike masnick just hates it when speech is silenced

—Anonymous Coward

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 12:34pm

'Just give them what they want, what's the worst that could happen?'

I guess no-one at that company paid the slightest attention to how these sort of things work, while folding may be cheaper in the short term, the parasites always demand more, so by giving in like this they've just indicated that all it takes is a little pressure to get them to comply, and I'm sure they'll be receiving even more 'requests' in the future now because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 1:10pm

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re:
  ...and? Is that a bad thing to hate? I'm of the opinion that copyright, no matter how benign someone tries to make it, is inherently bad, and thus should never be enforced.
  When you post this thing about hating a law whenever it's enforced, it's a stupid statement to make, because you elevate the law, make it seem as if it's divine mandate and thus, hating its enforcement becomes heresy against God.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    hating its enforcement becomes heresy against God.
    
    It is, so long as that God is Mamon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 1:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Some people can't tell the difference between the laws of God and the laws of Congress.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 1:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Thank you for bringing the check out clerk's perspective to the discussion.
    
    Perhaps if made your living selling your own creative output instead of canned beans and toilet paper you'd see it differently.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 2:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Zing!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 4:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Funny ^^
      
      It actually is though. The copyright maximilists have in the past said that people like me, the grocery store clerk, are a part of the copyright industry, and are wholly dependent on it, thus logically putting me in the same category as an artist when it comes to copyright.
      Anyway, my views on copyright are about enforcement and how that effects the computer hardware that I purchase and own. In a sane world, I would be free to write and/or execute any code I wanted on my machines, but we don't. We live in a world where even though I bought a Playstation 3, I now can't install Linux on it, not if I didn't want to lose one of the reasons I bought it for.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 4:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your reply also reveals how little thought you've put into things. Why does direct selling of a piece of content from artist to consumer have to be the only way, such that it's protected and enforced by law?
      Monetisation via ads is doing quite well. I watch Youtube reviewers quite a lot, I don't pay them a penny and yet they still make money through my viewing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 2:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Is that a bad thing to hate?"
    
    Lol.
    
    Artists don't seem to mind that their creations are protected. Why do you hate artists?
    
    And we already know Mike Masnick hates copyright, but he's too much of a weasel to admit it. So we point out the clues to his true motives.
    
    What's wrong with that? Nothing. Now you go have yourself a swell day, ok?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 6:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Correction, copyright holders don't seem to mind that artists creations are protected. Nobody here hates artists.
      
      And we already know you hate, the public domain, fair use,
      copyright lengths not measured in decades or lifetimes, artists being fairly paid by labels/studios/publishers, or
      artists being in controls of their own work, but you're too much of a weasel to admit it. So we point out the clues to your true motives.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 6:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't hate fair use or public domain in the least. I'm an artist that likes to mock pirates and all the laughably stupid bullshit they post on piracy blogs like this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shadow Dragon (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 6:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Translation: I.m not even a real artist at all.I.m just here as a paid troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 6:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Cuz people get paid to troll sites like this. Uh huh. Lol
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 7:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's only by ignorance or paid trolling that this site could be considered a pirate blog.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 7:28pm
        
        Two additional reasons
        First, the basic idea behind such accusations are the black and while 'If you're not with me, you're against me' way of thinking. To people like that, the idea that people could disagree with copyright as it currently is applied, and yet not be pirates or for piracy is just inconceivable.
        
        Second, it's a way to avoid addressing the points brought up by those that criticize current copyright law and how it's frequently abused. Instead of acknowledging the points brought up, they instead go on the attack, insisting that the only possible reason someone could disagree with copyright as it was being applied is if they disagreed with the core concept of copyright itself. Basically dodging the question by turning around and attacking the one making it, otherwise known as an ad hom argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shadow Dragon (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 7:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        YHBT
        http://m.youtube.com/?reload=2&rdm=13h93428h#/watch?v=cIpIAX78gig
        
        Have nice taste of your own medicine.If you have been smarter,then you shouldn't have replied.Joke's on you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 8:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what content have you produced?
        
        I'm not counting on there being an answer, because chumps like you are allergic to evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 9:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah I'm going to reveal my identity to you douchebags. Sure, that'll happen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 10:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So nothing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2014 @ 12:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you don't get to whine about people not buying your stuff, because I don't know what it is and where and how it can be legally purchased. Go whine somewhere else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DJFM, 23 May 2014 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Real artists, especially those whom earn a decent income from their profession, would not be afraid to publish a link to their work. What's the worst that could happen from doing so? Absolutely nothing. It's pretty clear that this particular troll isn't an artist at all and the odds of me being wrong on that are easily less than one percent. Speaking from experience, a "real" artist pretty much always jumps at the chance to advertise their work. You'd think those whom have gotten a lot of notoriety already, the ones who've been at it for the longest and tend to fall into the so called 1% category, would be the ones most likely to keep quiet since they have nothing to prove. They're not! Good lord do they ever have the biggest egos, never missing a single opportunity to brag about their "art" and how great and/or successful they are at it. Anyone who works in media, particularly the musical aspect of it, knows exactly what I'm talking about. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 23 May 2014 @ 12:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, you admit you're not interested in using the tools at your disposal to promote your work, and instead depend on lying about the potential customers who frequent this site? Then you don't get to whine when nobody buys whatever substandard crap you're passing off as art.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2014 @ 1:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What are you afraid of? If you're seriously an honest artist, what's the harm in the good people here knowing who you are?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 23 May 2014 @ 2:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Chicken.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 23 May 2014 @ 12:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whereas I'm a paying customer who wishes a liar and a delusional fool would stop making crap up and at least identify himself. I'm still concerned that my money inadvertently funds your inane obsession with creating a fantasy world to blame for your own failures in life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2014 @ 1:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm a terrorist apologist that likes to mock honest people and all the laughably stupid bullshit they post on truth-telling blogs like this."
        
        Fixed that for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2014 @ 1:01am
  
  Re:
  No. Mike Masnick hates it when copyright law is *abused*.
  
  You just hate it when Masnick and the others here call you out on your lies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Connor Clawson, 22 May 2014 @ 1:19pm

wait...
... Vimeo is still around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 1:27pm

Mike masnick just hates it when speech is silenced
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 1:57pm

Many other things, such as religion, environmentalism, and science, have been accused of having a near fanatic following bordering on religion in it's extreme views. You can see that in action again, when you see the trolls coming in to support the unsupportable, just because.

When it's all about the money and control it is humorous at best to hear moral arguments against the very nature of man to share. Despite all the preaching to the contrary, even the copyright industries themselves have an internal battle to prevent that sharing through works not their own. You see it all the time in the news, where some image, some song, some work, has been by their standards heisted for their own use. All it does is strengthen the argument that culture is about sharing, not about control. Internally, mankind understands this, which is where the real educational battle is being fought and lost.

I am of the same opinion as Rikuo that copyright should be done away with as something out of the near medieval reflection of thought. It more resembles the inquisition in this chasing of 'unbelievers' of copyright. Certainly it is a moral foul to even attempt to claim the moral high road on something so plainly against the nature of man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re:
  You don't make money by sharing. You make money by controlling how things are shared.
  
  The whole basis of copyright is greed, and that's where you need to start discussing morality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 2:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Pretty sure the dbag that pirates stuff instead of buying it is the greedy one.
    
    Actually, totally sure.
    
    But nice try!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2014 @ 1:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Pretty sure the dbag that pirates stuff instead of buying it is the greedy one.
      
      Actually, totally sure."
      
      Must be nice to be totally sure of something that's wrong.
      
      The "Pirates", as you misname them, aren't the ones that call for extended copyright without a legitimate reason.
      
      The "Pirates" haven't been trying to cheat public domain out of material to try and milk more money out of it.
      
      The "Pirates" aren't the ones forcing malware on people to try and stop them doing what they want with items they own.
      
      The "Pirates" aren't trying to force people to accept "terms" on digital items they own, which will allow them to remove those items from a persons' files without refund, in an effort to cheat them.
      
      All of these acts of greec your side are undeniably guilty of.
      
      If you only want this debate in terms of "good and bad", then you're the ones in the wrong. You're the "bad guys".
      
      Not because we say so, but because your actions paint you as such.
      
      You need to stop lying.
      You
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 2:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You don't make money by sharing. You make money by controlling how things are shared.
    
    I think Linus Torvalds and his merry band of kernel maintainers may disagree with you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 2:02pm

The troll once again ignores the idea that culture was and has been shared and created long before copyright ever existed. In effect he nulls his own bias opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 2:27pm

as usual, it's the 'punish first, repeal later' (if they feel like it!) yet another absolutely ridiculous one way effort by the stupid people in charge of the various entertainment industries and the politicians who do everything the industries ask for/demand, just to get a few more dollars of 'campaign funding', whilst completely ignoring the people whose votes put them in the office in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silver Fang (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 2:47pm

Sad
It's so sad to see these tech companies just cave in to the demands of the legacy entertainment industry. The Internet is our future and should be given the nod rather than the tired, old industries that can't see that their time was up long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 3:06pm
  
  Re: Sad
  I think it is a case of keep going using content-id, or go bust fighting the law suites, and skewed laws that the legacy players will keep throwing at you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 3:56pm
    
    Re: Re: Sad
    When YT was on it's own, maybe, but once they were bought out by Google...
    
    Google has money to burn, they could have easily won the war of attrition, and that would have settled it, by instead giving in, they've sentenced themselves to death by a thousand cuts, as they will always be facing demands to do 'just a little bit more'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tice with a J (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 4:40pm

Freedom was nice while it lasted
Well, folks, it looks like Internet 2.0 has officially become a tool of The Man. Time to start building version 3:

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=1106

I don't know if we can make a better Internet, but I know it's worth trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2014 @ 8:03am

Willful Blindness
How about this:

If a landlord "willfully" installs or allows tenants to install "blinds" on their windows, or fails to provide enough windows to allow all activities within a structure to be observed from the outside, then due to "willful blindness" such landlord shall be responsible for any illegal or unlawful acts committed within the structure.

Same principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2014 @ 11:00am

Vimeo is doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Soakell, 4 Jun 2014 @ 3:34am

Vimeo Copyright ID Match
Just following on from this article really.... We've produced regarding Vimeo's new copyright laws so thought we'd make those reading this article, aware of ours.

In a nutshell, Vimeo has adopted a Copyright ID Match similar to YouTube for matching copyrighted music and video in content, so we've produced an article informing readers how it will effect the content they create.

You can view the article here: http://www.beatsuite.com/blog/2014/vimeo-copyright-id-match

If you like what you see, then please feel free to share, Tweet about it etc!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]