If you publicly predict the outcome of an unpublished TV show could you sue them for copyright infringement?
If the producer didn't actively copyright said outcome this could be the case for real since you get copyright on stuff automatically. Never assume something is funny with copyright, chances are it is as real as it sounds funny.
the service provider’s employee cannot be expected to know how to distinguish, for example, between infringements and parodies that may qualify as fair use
Fair use is a right, not a defense. And these videos are mostly fair use. If even you, a long time shill, can't tell what is infringing or not, the average worker can't be expected to tell the distinction. That's why there are courts if the copyright holder believes there's any harm.
By this judgement, the employee is to assume that EVERYTHING is fair use
Or rather assume they don't know the copyright status of anything and either take down when requested OR let it go to the courts to be decided. There's nothing in the article saying that Vimeo doesn't have its DMCA mechanisms and there's nothing in the DMCA saying that it cannot dispute the copyright status of something if they believe it's, say, fair use. The only way they can be liable is if they don't remove something after scoring a defeat through the courts. Have they done that? No.
They also would likely NOT in any manner help in locating the user or provide any information that would help.
Thankfully. They can request removal and Vimeo can deny if they believe it is some sort of fair use. Then The holder can go to courts and force the removal and it's all right. At best they can go after the individual for damages and in that case IF the judge allows for such discovery then Vimeo would have to comply. Other than that they are in the right.
It creates the perfect position for the company to encourage such videos and to profit from them while providing 100% perfect legal protection.
If it is fair use and I believe it is, then that's awesome!
To be honest, we've been hearing the call for backup for decades but most of us still don't do it properly even if we are well aware. At least from my experience there are very few people that do backups flawlessly. Kind of a side note I wanted to point out.
Not to ignore the fact that it's a major company that should know better, the Government should have double checked if there was redundancy too. If I were to hire a company to backup my stuff I would not only want to both see the separate server/farm that's doing the work but also elect random content in my server/data center to retrieve from the backups and compare hashes. Of course, I would probably be interested in preserving such files whereas we can't be so sure when concerning the Government.
Also, conspiracy theories. Maybe this was intended? I wouldn't be surprised.
Maybe. You can destroy someone just by imposing court fees on them. That's why I think all costs should be put on the Government's tab and then issued to whoever loses. That would greatly help balancing the scales of justice.
The difference between a world with Twitters, Facebooks and Googles and without them in terms of terrorism is that with those platforms it is visible. Without it is not. With the added benefit that with those platforms you can counter their insanity with more speech and people in general have great platforms to express themselves, activism or not.
But no, let's freak out and try to shoot the messengers because of a tiny little bit of the population that are complete morons and happen to use religions to justify their idiocy. It is sad they use the same tools we do but for their twisted purposes. Thankfully we (still) don't blame kitchen knives manufactures for murderers using their products. I kind of like to cook and it would be kind of hard to cook without those.
Wait, wait. Let me try to place the bright side in text form:
I mean, if you can see anything bright with companies that produce absolutely nothing, contribute nothing to the progress of science and actually kill newborn companies that are actually doing things that benefit humanity in any ways just because they own a couple of overly broad, badly written patents then please share with us. Kind of hard to see such side.
Or maybe you refer to the brightness of all the money sent your way to shill for such absurdity? If that's the case please excuse me.
These levies are fundamentally flawed. Suppose I make a copy of some content so I can keep the original in a good state for years or I want to backup my legally purchased digital files. If there is a levy placed on them I'm paying the creator (assuming the money does reach the creator) for content I already own. Or a company that buys media for their activity that has absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely copyrightable that is also paying the levy, because reasons.
And that without even exploring the fact that such money will hardly ever reach the artists and when it does it will only go for the few very successful ones effectively denying the very reason copyright (should) exist: to promote creation. Major artists do not need further incentive to create, they already have the incentive flowing in. Smaller artists on the other hand? And yet these smaller artists actually wouldn't benefit from copyright at all if they actively enforced it simply because they NEED eyeballs, ears, they NEED sharing, advertising from those who love them to spread their work.
Intellectual property is a poison. I used to be those who didn't agree with the overreach but was perfectly fine with giving some sort of limited time protection. Not anymore. It was so damn defaced and distorted that I decided intellectual property as a whole should be extinct. Greed and entitlement will eventually deface the new system as well.