recently, More than a dozen record companies asked the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to pursue the caseVimeoLiability for copyright infringement.

To Universal Music Group (Universal Music Group) Subsidiary Capitol Records (Capitol Records) The group, led by several major record labels, initially sued in Manhattan federal courtVimeo. Other record labels joining the lawsuit include Caroline Records (Caroline Records) , Viking Records (Virgin Records) , Diamond music (Stone Diamond Music Corporation) And a couple of EMI records (EMI) subsidiary.

Although the federal courts have recognizedVimeoEmployees viewed the video content and knew it contained copyrighted music, But the court granted a summary judgment, The reason is that the company does not "Power and capacity control" Infringement by the user.

The federal court also affirmed, No matter where the recording is1972Was it published before or after, "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA) Provides the provider with a protection against infringement "Safe haven" Protection.

According to Bill．Clinton (Bill Clinton) Passed during the administrationDMCA, so-called "Safe haven" Provisions generally protect Internet providers and other middlemen from such infringement claims.

Capitol Records argument, The lower court underestimatedVimeoGreat influence, Erring on judgment.

Capitol Records' lawyers wrote in the complaint: "Documentary evidence, VimeoFor its infringement 'Lip Dub Stars' Channel seeks special sponsorship; Other advertising revenue is directly generated by infringing videos; In addition to 'Don't ask, don't tell (don' t ask, don' t tell) ' The infringement policy attracts users. "

Catherine, the lawyer representing Capitol Records．Stetson (Catherine Stetson) consider, Vimeopass "Lip Dub Stars" Channel promotional materials and tutorials, Users are encouraged to use copyrighted music content on their platforms.

Stetson claims: "The homepage says shoot first and sing along to the song, It is then synchronized with a high-quality song copy and editing program. Are there online tutorials to show users how to do this exactly. "

Stetson also said, VimeoInfringements on their website "Know like the back of one's hand" . She points out, VimeoAn email from the company acknowledged EMI's requestVimeoRemove all of the company's work from its website.

Mr Stetson added, VimeoKnow how to use songs in the background of videos "Clear violation of the law" .

VimeoThe attorney representing Katherine．Sullivan (Kathleen Sullivan) Refuting Stetson's claim thatVimeohave "Control power and ability" Argument of, And added thatVimeoThe ability to control its website is insufficient to exert material influence.

Sullivan claims: "Unless a clear infringement, Which is clearly not licensed, Clearly not fair use, Otherwise there would be no warning. Encouraging lip dubbing does not materially affect infringement, Because lip dubbing is clearly fair use. "

Barrington, appointed by President George W. Bush．Parker (Barrington D. Parker) The judge responded that: "Such statement, That it is a clear violation of the law to play music on websites that use music without authorization, Is not a correct statement of the law. It's not an obvious violation of the law, Because the law is more complicated than that. "

Mr. Parker was joined at the hearing by Mr. Leval (Leval) Judge and Biden-appointed U. S. Circuit Judge Sarah．Merian (Sarah A. L. Merriam) . The collegiate panel made no decision at the end of the hearing.

At Universal2013Year on music sharing serviceGroovesharkIn the proceedings, The New York State Court of Appeals held, DMCAThe scope of protection does not include1972Unlicensed music recorded prior to this year.

therefore, U. S. District Judge Ronnie．Abrams (Ronnie Abrams) in2014Partial summary judgment was handed down. She wrote in her opinion, DMCAThe Safe harbor clause does not apply1972Recordings from years ago, Because the recordings are protected by state law, not federal law.

The Second Circuit later ruled in a lengthy ruling55Page opinion overturned the decision. Principal draftsman, Clinton appointee Pierre．Leval (Pierre Leval) The judge held that, Excluding state copyright infringement would distort congressional passageDMCAIntention of.

Leval writes: "Interpret the Act as allowing service providers to post to users under state copyright law, The service provider is liable for infringement without its knowledge, Would defeat the purpose for which Congress passed the statute. " (Be compiled fromwww. courthousenews. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.