|
 In a victory for internet service providers, the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in New York also held that the mere
fact that Vimeo employees had viewed videos with copyrighted
sound recordings was not enough to prove the company ignored red
flags of infringement.
The case, pursued by Capitol Records and Sony Corp units, was
closely watched in Silicon Valley, with Vimeo's appeal drawing
support from Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google,
and other companies.
"Today's ruling by the Second Circuit is a significant win for
not just Vimeo, but all online platforms that empower creators
to share content with the world," Michael Cheah, Vimeo's general
counsel, said in a statement.
The Recording Industry Association of America, the labels' trade
group, said in a statement it was disappointed with the ruling,
which it said came despite evidence showing Vimeo's company
policy was to look the other way.
"Now, more than ever, it is clear that Congress needs to act to
fix a law enacted in the days of dial-up Internet connections,"
the group said.
A lawyer for Capitol Records, a unit of Vivendi SA, and the Sony
units declined to provide immediate comment.
The case focused on the interpretation of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, or DMCA.
The law protects internet service providers from liability when
users upload copyrighted content while requiring them to remove
the material if they receive notice or otherwise become aware of
the infringement.
The lawsuit, filed in 2009, alleged copyright infringement over
music in 199 videos that Vimeo users had uploaded to the site.
[to top of second column] |
U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams in 2013 ruled Vimeo was protected
under the DMCA safe harbor provisions with regard to 153 videos.
But she held that the safe harbor was not applicable to recordings
from before 1972, the year Congress first included them in the scope
of federal copyright law. Pre-1972 recordings are protected by state
law.
She also said Vimeo could face trial over whether it had known of
"red flags" that made infringement apparent.
Thursday's ruling reversed those holdings. Writing for the
three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Pierre Leval said that
interpreting the act as leaving providers exposed to liability under
state copyright laws would defeat Congress' intent.
"Service providers would be compelled either to incur heavy costs of
monitoring every posting to be sure it did not contain infringing
pre-1972 recordings, or incurring potentially crushing liabilities
under state copyright laws," he wrote.
The case is Capitol Records LLC et al v. Vimeo LLC et al, 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-1048.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in New York; Additional reporting by
Nikhil Subba in Bengaluru; Editing by Richard Chang and Peter
Cooney)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
