Vimeo Pressured Into Setting Up Its Own Content ID

from the via-audible-magic dept

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.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: audible magic, vimeo

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Vimeo Pressured Into Setting Up Its Own Content ID”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

‘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.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Is that a bad thing to hate?”


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?

JMT says:

Re: 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.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 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.

DJFM says:

Re: Re: Re:6 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. 😉

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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!

That One Guy (profile) says:

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’.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Matthew Soakell (user link) says:

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:

If you like what you see, then please feel free to share, Tweet about it etc!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...