Jump to content

Vimeo to automatically mute videos with 'unlicensed' soundtracks


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

Well, if you guys are serious about supporting artists, don't shed a tear for the RIAA and the music industry, support websites like "bandcamp.com" where artists can sell directly to you. They aren't losing money because of Vimeo, that's just free promotion, they're losing money because of offshore file upload websites and the music blogs that link to them.

 

If I can, I like to buy directly from the artists, I try to do that at live events for example (they sell cd's at live shows because they actually see the money). It's not just free downloads that are stealing from musicians, it's the labels and their managers too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I know Andrew. But that is not an excuse for copyright infringement. Make another edit with another score for your promo work, if you must... If a person is unable to do their business without copyrig

Have you seen this?   vimeo.com/blog/post:626   Essentially Copyright Match works like on YouTube where commercial music is matched to a database and flagged automatically. On YouTube the video is

I make 3-4 wedding videos each year.  The couples I shoot choose their own music for very particular reasons, mostly some kind of emotional connection to a song.   It might be the first song they danc

Well, if you guys are serious about supporting artists, don't shed a tear for the RIAA and the music industry, support websites like "bandcamp.com" where artists can sell directly to you. They aren't losing money because of Vimeo, that's just free promotion, they're losing money because of offshore file upload websites and the music blogs that link to them.

 

If I can, I like to buy directly from the artists, I try to do that at live events for example (they sell cd's at live shows because they actually see the money). It's not just free downloads that are stealing from musicians, it's the labels and their managers too. My ex used to work in R&R, you would not believe the crap that goes on. 

 

Musicians and writers often do get ripped off by publishers.  That's why more and more of them are getting into self-publishing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Legitimate question to you Andrew, not trolling here. Would you be okay with me downloading footage that you have shot and re-editing it or repurposing it somehow for my own creative use without permission? Uploaded to vimeo for as a personal or experimental project

 

No, but if you played it 'as it is' like I do with music, and credited me, like I do with music, then I'd be pleased at the exposure and extra book sales for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've written a song or a piece of music, you absolutely have the right to choose how it is used.

There can be no argument against this, its the most logical thing in the world & is why copyright exists and has done for quite some time.

 

However, you could be helping someone get more expossure by using a song/group not mant people have heard of - as long as you don't link to iTunes but their website!

 

I think where Vimeo might have hit a snag might be the whole "Tip Jar" button - which is basically saying give me money for my efforts, even if i'm not paying for the music...

 

If you've ever had to deal with music liscencing, then you'll know that there are a handful of bands that absolutely don't want you to use their music - David Bowie & The Rolling Stones being the big 2 (of course if you pay through the nose they will let you use their tunes).

 

Conversely, you don't have to pay if you only use a few seconds (check/google to see how many).

And, Educational stuff is pretty much the same as using film clips, but they can still be bastards about it because you still need to get permission.

 

Also, it doesn't actually cost that much...

Link to post
Share on other sites

this has to do with 

1.their video on demand which is totally commercial, and it obviously attracted the vultures (record labels)

2.their so called music store, which is really bad and they think they can profit from, they will not.

3. their increasing popularity 

 

i am sorry but as a paying customer, i will not have vimeo policing my uploads! i twiched earlier this year with the rating system of safe or unsafe videos and self- censhorpship they proposed, i dont mind watching boobs, who cares.

yes the internet was made to be free, thats why it was so succesful.

 

if i have a private video they say they will scan it to see if i used a track? what is that? where is privacy?its private!

 

this is rotten from the get go. if we get a lot of people to complain hopefully they will reconsider

Link to post
Share on other sites

but it's all copyright theft if you use it without permission - that's why we have copyright laws

people on the web seem to forget that !

 

it's not free - it's someone/s career and livelyhood , how they pay the mortgage - so respest that.

yes i wouldnt download a car...reminds me the commercial. i would by the way! i am just waiting for the printer...

if i pay 2 dollars to download a track and use this track in a video i made is it copyright theft? they are asking for 100 dollars to use a track, that means if i have to use 3 songs i will have to pay 300 dollars for some obscure music  from vimeo store.go see the prices, does this sound fair?

who makes so much money? not from where i am from!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is crazy because sometimes I hear a catchy tune on a video and then go buy that tune, so they get free marketing and a sale out of it.

 

Dont the suits realise this happens a lot, as I see many asking uncredited work what music was used in the feedback comments and this is invaluable for smaller artists needing airplay.

 

The notion that vimeo or youtube can be used as some kinda jukebox is silly.

 

For me as long as you give credit and play by fair use (use short passages, snippets not whole works and put the original artist in a good light) I think it should be allowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue with this is that I license music for my commercial videos(mostly from Envato) and every time I upload, I will have to prove that I own a license for music to a video based website that is not an owner of those rights. Bureaucracy, bureaucracy... why make it easy, when you can make it more complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and for the people that are using cloud services beware,  i guess in some years when you go to edit a film on the adobe cloud you will be asked for rights on the music or film you are importing....

 

this is where this thing is going anyway..

this is why i am against crazy copyright laws...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crazy thing is that its the music companies that are doing this because they feel they are getting ripped off, which is exactly what they are doing to their artists.

 

Vimeo could quite easily pay a blanket fee per year for its users, so they are being a bit cheap as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The suits are stupid on the part of labels, because things like lipdubs and so on don't harm revenue, they're free advertising.

 

A person a who re-appropriates a song over some test film is advertising the song, not stealing it. It affect no revenue virtual or otherwise.

 

No one watches that video instead of putting a song on their ipod or music library.

 

Counting "lost" revenue is straight up bulshit. Not every theif of digital, infinitely copyable goods is a potential purchaser, not every person who watched the video would buy the song. It's a moronic way to measure losses. You can't lose what doesn't exist.

 

The YouTube plan was far better, adding a purchase link, and allows videos to sell the original, turning it into revenue generating free advertising.

 

Using an arbitration bot to delete video will send a lot of users packing.

 

It is literally finding everyone guilty until proven innocent, and is a spineless move.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

The suits are stupid on the part of labels, because things like lipdubs and so on don't harm revenue, they're free advertising.

 

A person a who re-appropriates a song over some test film is advertising the song, not stealing it. It affect no revenue virtual or otherwise.

 

The YouTube plan was far better, adding a purchase link, and allows videos to sell the original, turning it into revenue generating free advertising.

 

Using an arbitration bot will send a lot of users packing.

 

Agree 100%!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

The music business has a right to protect the business and enforce copyright, of course it does - but it is doing it in such a way as to actually harm the business.

 

The amount of music bought legally and the number of artists given vital exposure far outweighs whatever the music industry would gain through royalty fees from charging or suing Vimeo and their users.

 

I don't agree with Andy that whenever a song gets airtime and no royalties are handed over - that constitutes theft - all the musicians I know want the exposure. If their own labels start hacking away at the very infrastructure giving them that exposure then it is goodbye new talent. The end.

 

Vimeo is the music industry's friend and instead they are attacking it.

 

In my view the record labels should all simply be bought out in hostile takeover bids by internet companies and the whole business model changed to something better suited to the 21st century. It is the only way artists are going to get paid for their work. The current strategy just won't work on a business level, never mind a fair use / artistic freedom level. Also fair use copyright laws desperately need to be tightened up and made clearer. It is not acceptable for artists who experiment and share their experiments on the internet on a non-profit basis to risk lawsuits over copyright infringement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a sidenote, when I moved to Asia almost eight years ago, I had to leave behind a collection of some 800 CDs and 400 DVDs. When I tried purchasing some of the titles I missed most from here and Korea, most of the retailers' websites responded with something like "not avaiable in your region". And this applied even to some 50-70 year old broadcasts of classical music. They won't ship here, and they won't allow me to download either. I think the masterpieces of classical music are the world's heritage - and at the time I was very angry. I will leave it to you to guess how I dealt with that. As far as music for non-commercial work uploaded to the Web goes, I used to use a site with tens of thousands of tracks that charges only 99 cents.

As little empathy as I have for the conglomerates, I'm not quite sure how I feel about using music without paying royalties... In any case, I don't think switching from Vimeo to YouTube is the answer. Recently, I've been seriously considering hosting my own videos on my blog to avoid the ugly clutter and advertising at YouTube, and readers wouldn't be redirected from my site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that all mechanicals (Mechanical copyrights are those that the labels own 100%) should expire after five years. Since they have been in the public domain for five years, then they should be public domain forever so long as they are not used for profit.

 

Jeez - what other line of work is it where you still get paid 30-40 years later for something you recorded when you were coked off yer head. Try telling that to a paramedic who saved someones life 30 years ago. Hmmm It doesn't seem right with world unemployment rising does it?

 

The recent Pink Floyd digital remastered collection of all their studio albums served only one purpose - to refresh the mechanical copyright and at the same time get the public to pay for it on top- double whammy.

 

Consider the Who's, 'Wont get fooled again' the message is in the music - how can they sleep cashing in on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is one thing to protect copyright.  It's another thing to deploy a process in which the small guy almost always loses.

 

My experience with the other big video hosting company is that if you get hit by a false positive, it can take up to six week for the rights "holder" to respond to your dispute.  And if they do respond, they can deny your dispute and you will have to go through the formal appeal process which involves disclosing your personal information.  Unless your pocket is as deep as one of these vultures, responding to those legal letters is simply not worth the time and money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about the corporations, they're the ones that are really going to gain from controlling internet usage, the artists won't see a dime. I was in a meeting where the studio marketing people were talking about the decision to sell the final special edition movie of a popular franchise in a boxed set that would include all the movies already released, that was the only way to get the special disk. They knew it wold force the fans of the series to re-purchase all those disks.. this was a good idea to them. I really don't have much sympathy for the MPAA or the RIAA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...