Techdirt. Stories filed under "employees"

Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs

Mike Masnick — Tue, 8 Jan 2013 08:59:39 PST

You may recall that, back in 2009, a bunch of the major labels filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against online video site Vimeo, paying particular attention to the fact that the site had popularized "lipdubs" in large part due to this quite popular lipdub by Vimeo's own staff of the song Flagpole Sitta by Harvey Danger.

Lip Dub - Flagpole Sitta by Harvey Danger from amandalynferri on Vimeo.

While EMI insisted that that particular video and others like it were doing incalculable harm to itself and the musicians it represented, the lead singer from Harvey Danger actually noted that the video made him "incredibly happy" as it helped increase the popularity of the song.

Either way, that lawsuit sat on the shelf for a while, as the judge suggested that it ought to await the outcome of the somewhat similar Viacom/YouTube lawsuit. After that lawsuit got sent back to the district court by the appeals court, the major labels are apparently getting restless and have sought to revive the case against Vimeo, by seeking a summary judgment in their favor.

The case is a bit more complex than the YouTube case, which may spell trouble for Vimeo (and owners IAC), but that doesn't mean that the labels are staying away from a whole bunch of absolutely preposterous arguments. The best thing that the labels have going for them in their argument is the fact that Vimeo employees posted videos that had infringing content. The DMCA safe harbors protect a website from user behavior, but not their own. So, legally, their argument seems a bit stronger on that front, but culturally, it still seems like a dumb argument, as highlighted by the singer's comments above. Most people don't think lipdubs should be illegal, because that seems silly. Lipdubs are about people celebrating and promoting the music they love in creative ways.

Really, that's the crux of this lawsuit. While Vimeo may be in legal trouble, it really highlights the basic cultural divide at issue here. People who put together lipdubs spent a ton of time and effort to creatively enhance the music they love and share it with the world in a cool manner, which does not replace the music, but tends to advertise it. For those unfamiliar with the basics of copyright, saying lipdubs are illegal just feels wrong, even if there may be some legal backing to it.

Making things perhaps somewhat trickier for Vimeo is the fact that it does somewhat aggressively monitor the content on its site for other issues, and doesn't allow a variety of other types of videos. The labels use this to imply that it is actively ignoring music copyright while blocking all sorts of other content:

Except for music, Vimeo strictly controls, monitors, and curates (in its words) the audiovisual works it copies, performs, and distributes. It prohibits – and uses its personnel and tools to review, monitor, and delete – all sorts of videos, including television programs, movies, and movie trailers, as well as “gameplay videos,” “commercial” videos (such as product promotions or real estate tours), “sexually explicit” videos, and “fan vids,” among others.... It enforces its discretionary and subjective guidelines to eliminate content that is not “Vimeoesque.”... All in order to mold its website and control its image.... Despite its pervasive involvement in and control of the content on its website, Vimeo does nothing to limit the infringing use of music on its website.

That may sound damning, but it's not as strong as it sounds. Determining whether or not a video includes infringing music is not as simple as the paragraph makes it sound. Vimeo has no way of knowing whether or not the video maker properly licensed the song in question in most cases. The other things it monitors for are much easier for it to determine. This is a major issue that supporters of copyright law often ignore.

The labels' attack on lipdubs is really kind of ridiculous when you think about it:

One of the early “creations” by Vimeo’s founder was a video format in which he “lip synched” to a commercial, copyrighted recording, synchronized the recording into the video during editing, and uploaded the video, making it available to every Vimeo user.... He named this “a lip dub,” and it was promoted as the “signature” Vimeo video genre, something that “put us [Vimeo] on the map.” .... As Vimeo and its users know, these popular lip dub videos, by definition, copy and incorporate copyrighted music without consent or license. ... (If Vimeo “suddenly started to ban videos with copyrighted music, like lipdubs, then I would be pissed but I would have to realize it’s their final decision.”) That also is apparent from Vimeo’s instructions on its home page on how to create lip dubs.... (“Like a music video. Shoot yourself mouthing along to a song then synch it with a high quality copy of the song in an editing program.”).

Lip dubs were heavily promoted. Vimeo provided a “Lip Dub Stars” channel, labeling it a channel “we like” and securing commercial sponsorship for it.... Lip dubs were featured as a “Vimeo Obsession” on Vimeo’s home page.... “Lip dub” became one of the top seven key words that drew visitors to Vimeo ..., and appeared (in several variants) in an internal chart of top “searches per day” on the Vimeo Website

Of course, one could make an argument that many lipdubs could be considered fair use, as being transformative. But, the labels assume that, by default, they all must be infringing.

Furthermore, among the more dubious arguments made by the labels is claiming that Vimeo's decision to not use a tool to filter out copyright infringement is the equivalent of "willful blindness." This is wrong. The law does not say that sites need to make use of filters and other tools to find possibly infringing works -- in part because a tool cannot properly assess if a work is infringing. They also make the argument that because Vimeo put "lip dub" in meta tags it's proof that they were promoting infringement. That seems very weak for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that search engines haven't used meta tags in ages. Also, the labels argue that because Vimeo offered licensable songs for sale to videomakers it knew that it was committing and encouraging infringement. This seems particularly bizarre. It's attacking Vimeo for actually doing the right thing and helping its users license music. But, just because they do that, it doesn't give them direct knowledge of whether or not users licensed music elsewhere. Oh yeah, the labels also -- ridiculously -- claim that pre-1972 songs are not subject to the DMCA, despite multiple courts rejecting this argument.

All that said, it still seems likely that Vimeo may have an uphill battle here. The fact that employees uploaded infringing works is going to make the case difficult, even if there are reasonable arguments for why they did it. The filing also has a bunch of quotes suggesting general awareness of infringement on the site, but "general" awareness is not enough to lose DMCA safe harbors. You need to be aware of specific infringement, and it's not entirely clear that that's true. There's one example of someone saying they weren't sure if something was licensed and offering to make a copy without music just to be safe, but that's not the same as knowing that the effort is definitely infringing. The other part that might come back to bite Vimeo is the lack of having a "repeat offender" policy for its DMCA takedowns. This is something that has tripped up others as well. The law requires such a policy, but it's unclear if Vimeo actually had one until about the time it was sued.

Still, it really does seem like this is yet another example of the labels fighting against how people enjoy culture today -- and how they help spread it. It's really shameful to see them on the attack, rather than figuring out ways to support it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Who Owns Employee Social Media Accounts? 'The Correct Answer Is: Shut Up'

Mike Masnick — Tue, 8 Mar 2011 06:16:21 PST

Back in October, we had a post looking into the legal issues of who actually owns a Twitter account, especially when a famous employee of a large corporation uses the Twitter account as a part of his or her job. As we noted, the law isn't clear, and for the most part, companies seem to assume that the employees own the accounts, so no one's really made a big stink about an employee leaving and taking a ton of "followers" with them. But, it's really only a matter of time.

Still, an anonymous reader sent over this recent take on the same issue by lawyer Jay Shepherd that gets right to the heart of the matter, brilliantly, in saying that if you're even asking the question as an employer, you're probably in trouble:

Who owns an employee's LinkedIn contacts?

Or Facebook friends? Or Twitter tweeps? If an employee is using these social-media sites in his or her professional capacity, does the employer have the right to take the contacts away once the employee leaves?

The correct answer is: shut up.

Seriously. If you're an employer or a manager and you're seriously asking these questions, you just don't get it when it comes to social media. You're missing the whole point of these social-networking sites.

His overall argument is pretty much exactly how we feel: employers need to let go of some things, and an employee's ability to build up relationships that they could potentially take with them when they leave is one thing to let go. The benefit of allowing this is much greater in the long run for a company. If you're going to try to claim ownership over employees' social media accounts, your employees are going to recognize that, and they won't care or invest as much effort into those accounts, meaning the company ends up getting very little benefit, even if they technically end up "owning" the account at the end of the day.

One of the key lessons that we try to point out over and over again on this site is that you don't have to control everything. Quite frequently, by letting go of control, you stand to benefit much, much more. And this is yet one more example where that's true.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Gun-Toting Robber

Mike Masnick — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:16:00 PST

Walmart has pretty specific rules for how employees are supposed to deal with shoplifters, however, it does seem a bit bizarre that the company would go so far as to fire some employees who disarmed a gun-toting thief. Obviously, the idea is that they don't want to encourage other employees to do the same thing, but does it really reach up to the level of firing the employees? At some point you have to wonder if there's a middle ground that makes sense.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

TSA Agents Absolutely Hate New Pat Downs, Find Them Disgusting And Morale Breaking

Mike Masnick — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:17:30 PST

One of the common themes that people keep mentioning in talking about the new TSA pat down procedures is that those involved must "enjoy" the groping they're giving people. But, of course, most TSA agents are normal every day people who don't actually want to grope random people. Chris Tolles points us to a post from BoardingArea.com, who reached out to some TSA agents and found that many TSA agents hate the new rules and find it to be sapping morale to have to grope passengers. Some of it appears to be the verbal abuse they're getting from travelers, but some of it is just the fact that they have to keep touching people they'd rather not touch in that way:

"It is not comfortable to come to work knowing full well that my hands will be feeling another man’s private parts, their butt, their inner thigh. Even worse is having to try and feel inside the flab rolls of obese passengers and we seem to get a lot of obese passengers!"

Of course, it does seem like a lot of the "morale" part comes from everyone accusing them of molesting them. I recognize, they're not the ones making policy, but many of the people being groped do feel violated and it's not surprising that many of them speak out.

"Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me, said in my presence as I patted passengers down. These comments are painful and demoralizing, one day is bad enough, but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments. If something doesn’t change in the next two weeks I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country."

This is going to be a serious problem for the TSA if it doesn't figure out something quick. So far, the TSA seems to be in near absolute denial that this is actually a problem, but if these TSA responses are indicative of how most TSA agents feel, there are going to be a lot fewer security people at airports very, very soon.

Of course... it could be true that at least some of those actually are enjoying the process. Reader Lance point us to (an admittedly hearsay) story of a pilot traveling with his 18-year old daughter. As they approached the naked image scanner, the pilot overheard a TSA agent say into his radio: "heads up, got a cutie for you." One of the points the TSA has been making is that the folks looking at the images are off in another room somewhere, unable to see the people -- but they are in contact with those at the security checkpoint, and you'd have to imagine this kind of thing happens.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Scuba Diving Organizer Sues Web Forum After Debate Over Scuba Death Liability

Mike Masnick — Thu, 13 May 2010 01:39:59 PDT

When will companies learn? Blaine points us to a story that's now a few months old, but still worth talking about. Apparently, two years ago, there was a scuba diving accident where someone died and some others were injured. On a particular scuba diving forum, ScubaBoard.com, there was a discussion about the incident. Apparently there had already been some other somewhat negative postings about the travel agency, Maldives Scuba Diving, that organized (and potentially ran) the trip, and from there the conversation spiraled. The person who owns the travel agency decided to sue just about everyone, including ScubaBoard.com. For ScubaBoard, it seems like this should be a quick Section 230 dismissal based on safe harbors, but the site's owner is apparently still scrounging up the money to deal with this. Also, the complaint apparently tries to get around this by claiming that commenters on the message boards are "all agents or employees of Intermedia [ScubaBoard's owner], or made the postings at issue at Intermedia's direction." That's an argument that is likely to get laughed out of court.

There may be some cases against individual posters, but the comments sound like your ordinary comment board opinion and hyperbole. At least in the quoted comments, it's difficult to see anything that's actually defamatory. Upsetting? Perhaps, but not defamatory. It sounds like something bad happened, and whether or not the operator of this company was responsible, there were plenty of better ways to respond. However, busting out the lawsuit, suing the message board itself, as well as 100 posters, just seems to reinforce the problems and bring even more attention to the accident and the concerns people have with this woman's company.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Japan's Smile Scanners A Classic Misuse Of Technology

David Title — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:38:52 PDT

As pointed out on the Freakonomics Blog:

Japan's Keihin Express Railway Co. has set up "smile scanners" at 15 of its stations, where railway employees have their smiles assessed by software in the hopes of perfecting a customer-friendly look.

This is such a classic misuse of technology by a corporation. The goal of the company is to provide more positive and friendly customer service but its technique of using a "smile scanner" is going to have the opposite effect. Nobody likes to be forced into happiness, and the employees will end up resenting the scanners, their bosses for making them use the scanners and the customers for expecting them to smile.

Instead, a smart company would try to figure out how to make its employees genuinely happy so that they smile because they want to smile. This would create endless positive outcomes for the company, the employees and the customers.

Sometimes technology can look like it provides a quick fix when, in fact, it is just an illusion.

Cross-posted from MyMediaMusings.com

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Finland Agrees To Let Companies Spy On Workers

Mike Masnick — Thu, 5 Mar 2009 21:31:00 PST

Last month, we noted the controversy in Finland, as a new law was up for debate concerning whether or not companies there could spy on employee email. Beyond the general controversy, there were rumors that Nokia, who had been caught breaking the existing law by spying on employee emails before, had supposedly threatened to leave Finland if the law wasn't changed to allow such activities. Nokia has vehemently denied this, but hasn't denied that it supported the law. So... it's probably not a huge surprise that the Finnish Parliament has approved the law.

To be honest, the details of the law aren't that extreme. It doesn't let the company even read the emails -- just record who is emailing whom. For company email, that seems perfectly reasonable. Hell, the day this law passed, RIM admitted not only does it track and record all company email, but it does the same thing for all phone calls as well. Perhaps a more important question is whether or not that's a useful way to spend company resources? The companies obviously talk about the importance of "protecting" their IP, but I once worked for a company that recorded all phone calls as well, and all it really did was make all of the employees angry, disgruntled and less interested in working hard. Having your bosses distrust you can do that...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Your Fired Employees Are Stealing Your Data

Carlo Longino — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:12:07 PST

It probably shouldn't come as a big surprise that a new study says 60 percent of employees keep corporate data after they leave a job. The most common types of retained data are things like contact lists and non-financial information, with the ex-employees usually thinking it will help them in their next job. While this sort of stat will probably get blamed on the state of the economy, it's likely that rising unemployment probably only exacerbates it. A more worrying stat from the study is that a quarter of respondents said they were able to access data on their former employers' computer networks after they left the company. This corresponds to earlier research saying that "malicious insider" attacks are on the rise as the number of disgruntled employees and ex-employees grows. With so many companies focused on cutting costs by reducing headcount, effective data security could also fall by the wayside.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Is Nokia Demanding The Right To Spy On Its Employees?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:39:00 PST

There's quite a story making the rounds, suggesting that Nokia is putting significant pressure on the Finnish government, demanding that it pass a law allowing it to spy on its employees, or the company will leave Finland. Nokia is quickly denying the claim, which does seem pretty extreme. However, that doesn't mean that Nokia hasn't put political pressure on the government to pass this law. Apparently, the company has been caught multiple times illegally spying on employees, and has worked hard to get this law passed, which would legalize its actions. Despite legal experts all insisting that the law is unconstitutional, apparently the Finnish Parliament's Constitutional Law Committee has decided to move forward with it anyway -- which is what resulted in the speculation about the threat to leave Finland.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Dear Motorola: Instead Of Suing Competitors, Maybe Figure Out Why Employees Are Leaving

Mike Masnick — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:10:07 PDT

As a company, if things aren't going well, it's often difficult to accept that some of the blame may be on your end -- which makes it especially easy to lash out at competitors, assigning blame to them. This becomes troublesome when it starts to involve lawsuits. Just a couple months ago, we noted that Motorola was suing a former exec for jumping ship to Apple. And, now the company is suing RIM for getting a bunch of Motorola employees to leave Motorola and join RIM. To any outsider, it seems clear that Motorola has some problems that make it so employees are tempted to jump to other companies. But rather than focus on figuring out how to fix that, and make things such that employees want to stick around (making cooler phones might be a good place to start), it's lashing out at competitors who are more appealing to Motorola's own employees. In the meantime, Motorola might want to check out the research that shows the free flow of employees between competitors helps spread innovation across the entire market. In other words, stop suing people because your employees are leaving, and start figuring out ways to make employees want to work for you.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Turns Out Viacom Is Really Interested In What Google Employees Are Uploading/Viewing On YouTube

Mike Masnick — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:41:00 PDT

With all the fuss over a court telling Google it needs to give Viacom its log files, Google and Viacom have been discussing ways to hand over the data and retain anonymity (not an easy task). However, apparently one key point is that Viacom is most interested in finding out what Google employees were uploading and viewing on YouTube. That's an interesting, if sneaky, strategy, as in theory Viacom could use that to try to prove that Google employees "knew" that certain content was infringing, which potentially could remove some DMCA safe harbors. However, that would be a huge stretch in terms of the meaning of the law. If anything, this move shows how much Viacom's case appears to be based on grasping at straws. If the best it can do is try to show that some Google employees viewed or uploaded infringing material, that's a pretty weak case -- rather than focusing on the fundamental issue of how much responsibility Google has over the content users upload.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Preventing Your Employees From Watching Videos Won't Prevent Them From Procrastinating

Timothy Lee — Thu, 6 Mar 2008 08:15:00 PST

We've been saying for years that the notion that employee web surfing at work constitutes "lost profits" is nonsense. There is an infinite number of ways employees can waste time at work, from chatting with coworkers, reading magazines, or even taking a nap. Monitoring and restricting web surfing isn't likely to make employees procrastinate less, it'll just make them procrastinate in ways that are harder to monitor, and annoy them in the process. The Wall Street Journal has the latest example of surfing-at-work hysteria. Apparently the latest crisis is the time-wasting potential of Internet video sites. The funny thing about the article is that it inadvertently does a pretty good job of illustrating why blocking web-based video isn't a very good plan. One employee actually looked at clients' videos as part of his job, so he had to waste his own and the IT department's time seeking an exception every time he had a video he needed to watch in order to do his job. In an even more ridiculous case, an office had a mass shooting occur in a nearby mall, and all of the employees in the office apparently spent time complaining to the boss for permission to watch the news about it. Here, it was clear that the employees were already sitting around reading stories about the shooting, so they obviously weren't getting much work done. Yet for some reason the boss still seems proud of himself for preventing his employees from watching videos of the event. The article also cites bandwidth limitations as a reason for blocking online videos, but that seems like overkill. If upgrading bandwidth isn't an option (and bandwidth is getting cheaper every year) it seems like a much more straightforward approach would be to simply monitor total bandwidth consumption and warn the heaviest users to keep their consumption down. That would keep the network humming without treating employees like they're children.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Who's More Tech Savvy? Employees Or Employers?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:27:00 PST

I came across two separate stories today at about the same time, which seemed to be saying very different things, but seem worth discussing together. The first is about how big companies are increasingly technology savvy in spying on workers in everything that they do (sent in by reader gonzogirl). It notes that while CIOs used to worry about how employees would react to being spied on, these days it's barely a second thought, as it's become almost standard. The other study involves some research suggesting that employees are becoming a lot more tech savvy than their employers and trying to drag them into the 21st century. The researchers behind that report say that employees understand technology much better than their own CIOs.

At first glance, the two reports may seem to contradict each other, but that may not really be the case. It may actually show a lot more about where the priorities are for CIOs of large companies these days: fearful of what employees are doing, rather than looking for ways to help them get things done. Thus, when employees show up with new tools to make them more productive, the response isn't too embrace them, but to fear them (or figure out how they can be monitored). This wouldn't be particularly surprising, but it should be troublesome for those large companies, who are breeding atmospheres of distrust and trying to hold back the innovation needed to boost productivity and compete with more nimble companies.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story