Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday March 26 2018, @06:33PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the subtitles-provided-by-no-one dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow3941

The founder of a site that provided fan-created subtitles has lost his appeal against a conviction for copyright infringement. In 2017 a Swedish court found that the unauthorized distribution of movie subtitles is a crime, sentencing the then 32-year-old to probation and a fine. The Court of Appeal has now largely upheld that earlier verdict.

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/founder-of-fan-made-subtitle-site-lose-copyright-infringement-appeal-180318/


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 26 2018, @06:51PM (12 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Monday March 26 2018, @06:51PM (#658584)

    > sentencing the then 32-year-old to probation and a fine

    Copyright infringement should be punishable by Death, painful Death and more excruciating Death, with a possible leniency plea of one life sentence per sentence.
    Wimpy Swedes ! No wonder nobody watches your movies, only your wordless assembly instructions.

    • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @07:38PM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @07:38PM (#658610)

      Why do you people spend all your time fighting these worthless battles?

      Spend your time/resources on something else; quit devoting your lives to these corporate-owned assets.

      Make your own goddamn stuff.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:08PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:08PM (#658627)

        Clueless person is clueless, watches society collapse sitting in their lawn chair saying "not my fault!"

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:00PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:00PM (#658657)

          Well, what else would you have us do about the collapse of society?

          It really is best to find something that one enjoys and focus on that.

          You think you have some say in what the ruling class does?

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 26 2018, @10:54PM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 26 2018, @10:54PM (#658689) Journal

            Well, what else would you have us do about the collapse of society?

            Make your contribution felt, do something constructive! I don't know... for example make some Molotov bottles.

            (grin)

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:23AM

              by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:23AM (#658737)

              I'm buying stocks of brooms and windows.
              Whoever wins the fight, someone's getting paid to clean up the shit.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:35PM (6 children)

        by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:35PM (#658956) Journal

        Make your own goddamn stuff.

        If I do take your advice to make my own GD stuff, what steps should I take to verify that my own GD stuff doesn't infringe copyright in any of the GD stuff that already exists? See, for example, the "My Sweet Lord" case (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:58PM (#658970)

          Just stay away from Chicago and hope nobody lets Larry Hoover out.

        • (Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:29PM (4 children)

          by darnkitten (1912) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:29PM (#659076)

          Mate--there's plenty of examples better to make your point than that one--the connection was obvious the first time I heard it, back in grade school. If George and his band hadn't been stoned out of their minds, one of 'em (at least) would've realized where the melody came from in time to secure the rights. "Subconscious plagiarism," indeed.

          That said, I'd rather listen to My Sweet Lord than hear He's So Fine any day of the week...

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:58PM (3 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:58PM (#659087) Journal
            "If George and his band hadn't been stoned out of their minds, one of 'em (at least) would've realized where the melody came from"

            There are only 7 notes in traditional European scales, 5 notes in widely used pentatonics, 12 in the chromatic scale but it's very difficult to use more than 7 in any given piece, and in fact nearly all use fewer than 5.

            Songs are generally considered to require two notes - a single note droned might accompany a chant but it's not not really a song.

            Most folk or popular songs, in terms of the main, recognizable motif (the bit that was supposedly copied here) are built from these notes, and most typically using only 3 of them, occasionally 4. That's a finite (very small) number of notes to work with, and in practice most of the possible combinations sound awful. So it's actually very, very easy for a musician to 'copy' common songs of the past without any need to have heard them played, even once. Teach an interested child any instrument at all, and after they master the basics of sound production you'll find they start spontaneously playing recognizable bits of lots of songs - sometimes ones they have never heard. They aren't copying. They're just arranging the elements they know in different ways to hear the results.

            And all of the possible combinations that sound good (and many that don't) have been used many, many times already. The only thing that makes it even possible to write a pop song that does NOT infringe copyright is that copyright used to expire, but as we all know, that's not really true anymore.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday March 28 2018, @02:49AM (2 children)

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday March 28 2018, @02:49AM (#659310) Journal

              There are only 7 notes in traditional European scales, 5 notes in widely used pentatonics, 12 in the chromatic scale but it's very difficult to use more than 7 in any given piece, and in fact nearly all use fewer than 5.

              "Nearly all use fewer than 5"?? That's absolutely false. Without using the internet, I dare you to come up with even 10 songs with FEWER than five distinct notes -- that is, only up to four notes. There are very few common songs that meet that criteria.

              You're right that standard pop music and folk songs often use 5 to 7 notes in their scales. But it's certainly not "very difficult" to use more. Let's set aside most of classical music, which often has pieces using all 12 chromatic notes (and almost all pieced use at least 8 or 9). Jazz traditions, Tin Pan Alley, Broadway showtunes, even most "old standards" of American popular song before the rock era tended to use more than 7 notes. It's not difficult -- it's just different stylistically.

              Of course, you're right that there are a limited number of recognizable short motives in standard scales using only a few notes. But copyright law properly applied shouldn't find infringement for short motives any more than a novelist should be found guilty of infringement for begining a story with "Once upon a time." It's easy to write a song that's sort of similar to another, but it's also pretty easy to make it distinctive with minimal effort... Even with only 5-7 note scales.

              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 28 2018, @04:20AM

                by Arik (4543) on Wednesday March 28 2018, @04:20AM (#659338) Journal
                "That's absolutely false."

                No, it's not. The main motif of virtually every popular song is built using 3 or 4 notes. Are other notes sounded incidentally during performance? Of course, in all but the sparsest arrangement they will be - but a super-sparse arrangement does not in any way get you off the copyright hook.

                "Without using the internet, I dare you to come up with even 10 songs with FEWER than five distinct notes -- that is, only up to four notes."

                10 off the top of my head is a bit much to ask, even as easy as they are to come up with, but I'll humor you with an example off the top of my head.

                Van Morrison - "Brown Eyed Girl" comes to mind because I was having fun figuring a little of it out just the other day. And the gist of that song is four notes, 1, 4, 5, and 6, in the correct time. Yes, any decent performance of the song will have a lot more, there is an absolutely brilliant intro at the beginning (that almost no one plays when they cover it) and lots of subtle garnishes - but no matter how badly you play it, skip the intro, don't try to capture any subtleties, it's still recognizably that song. You don't even need to try to sing it, you could play that on a kazoo or with one finger on a piano and it still sounds like Brown Eyed Girl.

                Now can you give one example? One example of a popular or folk tune built around a motif using more than 5 distinct notes? I'm sure there are a few but they're quite rare. I'm not talking about garnishes I'm talking about the guts of the tune - the minimum skeleton of it that you'll hear people hum, the recognizable core that a performer garnishes and embellishes to show his skill.

                "Let's set aside most of classical music"

                Yes, let's, it's an entirely different beast.

                As is Jazz. Jazz is not in any sense pop or folk music, despite it's origins, it hasn't been that for decades.

                "But copyright law properly applied"

                Isn't that extinct?

                Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that equivalence at the basic skeletal level I'm talking about, all by itself, is enough to get you found liable for copyright infringement. If there is absolutely no other resemblance between your song and the song owned by the plaintiff other than that, no resemblance in the lyrics, all the garnishes different, different style, different instrumentation, you can probably get away with that, where 'get away with that' is defined as not ultimately lose the case. You still might get sued and have to pay a lawyer though. And, more importantly, if you're trying to make a living with your music online, you can get 'taken down' without even having that opportunity to defend yourself. Take downs are often generated by robots submitted to robots and acted upon by robots with no human being, let alone a highly educated expert in music law, let alone an actual court, ever verifying them. This is only gaining speed, and it's a real danger.

                But forget about that, what could cause you to lose a copyright suit? Well, having the same basic skeletal structure as the song you're being sued for is strike one. We just need to add a couple more strikes, give or take, to get a judge on our side. And what if, rather than totally different lyrics instrumentation and style, both songs are done in similar styles, with similar instrumentation? Well you're probably going to have lots more similarities at that point, just implied by those facts, they're likely to be graced and harmonized similarly as well. And let's not pretend there is all that much room for variance in lyrics here either, there are a few themes that are repeated endlessly, so why would we not expect to find some sort of similarity there?

                I think it's a lot harder than you appreciate to write something truly new, or even just something not copyright infringing. As robots are used to match larger libraries, more and more hits will be found, more and more of the back-catalog will be dug up and dusted off and digitized - not to offer it to sale, but to train the robots looking for infringement - and as a result it's only going to get harder to sing or play anything that isn't at least confusingly similar with something in a record company catalog.
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
              • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday March 29 2018, @03:30PM

                by Pino P (4721) on Thursday March 29 2018, @03:30PM (#660007) Journal

                It's not difficult -- it's just different stylistically.

                The case law defining copying doesn't require the prior work and the infringing work to be identical, just "substantially similar". If two melodic hooks differ only in ornaments, such as grace notes or momentary chromaticity, the plaintiff's better-funded lawyers will probably persuade a jury to find them similar.

                Of course, you're right that there are a limited number of recognizable short motives in standard scales using only a few notes. But copyright law properly applied shouldn't find infringement for short motives

                The motive at issue in the Bright Tunes case was Sol~ Mi~ Re~, Sol La Do' La Do' Do', where ~ represents a long note. That was long enough for a finding of liability. Is this more than "short motives"? Or was copyright law improperly applied in that case?

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday March 26 2018, @06:54PM (6 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday March 26 2018, @06:54PM (#658587)

    The internet is global: you can have sites located in almost any country on the globe, but those sites are, for the most part, accessible from any other country.

    If you're going to do things on the internet that are of questionable legality (particularly with regard to copyright of purely intangible digital data), then WHY would you do it in your home country, instead of locating your service in some other country that doesn't have the same ridiculous copyright laws? Switzerland is probably a very good place to base your fan-created subtitle site out of.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by tfried on Monday March 26 2018, @07:39PM (5 children)

      by tfried (5534) on Monday March 26 2018, @07:39PM (#658612)

      I would guess the problem was that he did not even think this might be illegal, and if he did, he thought the copyright holders would not possibly mind, because what he's doing is actually helping them, not hurting them in any way.

      Which is a very reasonable position, except that reason was not the correct mode of thinking to apply...

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 26 2018, @08:47PM (4 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday March 26 2018, @08:47PM (#658650)

        he thought the copyright holders would not possibly mind, because what he's doing is actually helping them, not hurting them in any way.

        Yes, but we've seen countless examples of stuff like this, and it never goes well for the fans. Just look at how Star Trek fans have been shit on by Paramount time and time again. Copyright holding corporations have proven, over and over, that they're absolutely insane about their "rights" and anyone doing anything at all with "their" IP, no matter how much it logically increases the value (fan devotion to a franchise is extremely valuable over time: you can't place a value on free word-of-mouth advertising and the value of popularity).

        Another example of this is free song lyric sites, and also free guitar tab sites: they've all had legal challenges too. The guitar lyric ones seem to be fine, but song lyrics aren't so easily available because of this legal stuff.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:17PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:17PM (#658700)

          Just look at how Star Trek fans have been shit on by Paramount ...

          You're talking about Discovery, aren't you?

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Tuesday March 27 2018, @09:20AM (1 child)

            by anubi (2828) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @09:20AM (#658906) Journal

            Probably the main reason Star Trek is not nearly as important to me as it once was.

            It could have turned into a lifelong obsession, just as football has for others.

            But, the powers that be wanted to kill it.

            Can you imagine the Professional Baseball Association lobbying Congress to put Little League out of business, claiming loss of stadium tickets because some dad's kid was playing an illegal game of baseball, not properly sanctioned and umpired by approved licenseholders?

            There is only one Congress on this planet that I believe would pass such a bill if the hand of some self-proclaimed rightsholder had that in his wish-list.

            --
            "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:39PM

              by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:39PM (#658959) Journal

              Can you imagine the Professional Baseball Association lobbying Congress to put Little League out of business, claiming loss of stadium tickets because some dad's kid was playing an illegal game of baseball, not properly sanctioned and umpired by approved licenseholders?

              No, because ball sports are not subject to exclusive rights. In fact, that's the key difference in my mind between ball sports and esports that makes the former more legitimate. It's the difference that allowed the American League to exist and become the second US major league.

          • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:10PM

            by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:10PM (#658998) Journal
            More likely Axanar and the resulting heavy handed fan-film destroying, 'guidelines' that followed from Paramount.

            Too bad really, fan films were full of rough edges, but sometimes nearly up to par with TOS in terms of production values and some were quite enjoyable. Lots of cameos by series actors, nods to the various series, and fun for all. Kept interest alive, attracted new fans, and in no way compared to big budget films and professional episodic series.

            Costs are coming down too much though.

            "Prelude to Axanar" got significant fan contributions and looked like it was going to be able to put out a quality and engaging fan film, so Paramount came down from the mountain and threw down 15...errr, 10...TEN rules on stone tablets that basically relegated fanfilms to 15 minutes with a handycam in your back yard or get sued.

            Sad really, other universes would love that kind of exposure and fan engagement. Star Trek has it, and the fans are, as the GP noted "shit on by Paramount ..."
            --
            В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mobydisk on Monday March 26 2018, @07:17PM (36 children)

    by mobydisk (5472) on Monday March 26 2018, @07:17PM (#658597)

    Were they distributing subtitle files, or entire movies? The article doesn't say, but it only talks about the subtitles themselves, which implies that they were just sending out the subtitle files.

    Even if creating subtitles does indeed violate copyright, what do the copyright holders gain by stopping the practice? All it does is mean that more people will buy their movies. And it means their work is done for them. Heck, they should just link to the subtitle files from their web sites and not bother with doing their own professional subtitling. These people are doing them a favor. What am I missing here?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @07:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @07:41PM (#658613)

      There's a long history of you small people taking what isn't yours.

      Naturally, then, corporations have learned that they must have a zero-tolerance policy with regard to their assets; if you don't have an explicit deal with them, then you should fuck off and leave their content alone.

      I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but there is the explanation.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @07:50PM (31 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @07:50PM (#658616)

      What am I missing here?

      Nothing that I can see.

      Subtitles add value to the original product. If someone doesn't understand the language or is deaf or hard-of-hearing, there's no reason for them to buy the movie/show. Make translated and native-language subs available and suddenly there's a bigger potential customer base.

      What's also galling is the claim of copyright violation. The fan subs are being created because the original videos are lacking the desired subtitles. The fans are not copying any existing subtitles; they're creating them because they don't exist. There are no original subs to copy, so no rights-to-copy to be violated.

      If the publisher can't be bothered to offer what some potential customers want in order to become actual customers, you would think that someone else fulfilling the need would result in negative harm: more customers = more income. You would think that would result in everybody coming out ahead; the proverbial "win-win". Instead, the sub creators get burned, the would-be customers don't get subtitles so have no reason to buy the movies/shows and the publishers lose sales, so lose-lose all around.

      Good job, Lou. /s

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @07:57PM (19 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @07:57PM (#658622)

        All he had to do was pitch the project to the rights holders.

        Instead, he thumbed his nose at them and said "Come at me, bro."

        Civilized society demands mutual association, not imposition. Get agreement before you act. It's that simple, comrade.

        • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday March 26 2018, @08:18PM (10 children)

          by MostCynical (2589) on Monday March 26 2018, @08:18PM (#658631) Journal

          And how much are you willing to pay to provide these subtitles?
          You can't expect the rights holders to distribute your stuff for *free*, or let you dsitribute your stuff for free!

          --
          "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:29PM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:29PM (#658637)

            Those subtitles are in demand because the content is in demand.

            Those subtitles are only possible because there is existing content from which the subtitles can be almost mindlessly crafted.

            Strike a deal, or fuck off. What don't you get about that? WHAT DON'T YOU GET?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:39PM (7 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:39PM (#658643)

              "almost mindlessly crafted"

              I would say the same thing about how your parents made you :P

              You are in violation of the Shared Property Act which makes you my de facto slave. Thank GOD we live in a civilized society!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:45PM (6 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:45PM (#658648)

                Thanks for playing.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:51PM (5 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:51PM (#658652)

                  Not playing, this isn't a game. I understand your "logic" and I can see how legally this decision is the correct one, however it is still really stupid and is not the correct way forward for society.

                  Thanks for making the world worse, even if it is just one opinion on a small site.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:03PM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:03PM (#658662)

                    Property rights allow people to live-and-let-live, and they allow good stewards of society's resources to be found through voluntary interaction.

                    How is that not a good idea for the foundation of society?

                    Pray tell, what is the better direction? Pray tell!

                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @10:01PM (3 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @10:01PM (#658676)

                      Property rights are definitely essential at this point in time, but we do need to put the brakes on copyright lifetimes along with much improved fair use laws.

                      God I hate your "evolve / find" rationale for human society. The current system has corporations buying out all IP that becomes popular and locking it away. Our shared culture thus becomes stewarded by greedy shitbags who want to profit forever while doing little to no original work.

                      "Good stewards" lolol. Right now the current mindset is use up all the resources with zero plan on sustainability. Get with it sucka! Arguably the capitalist system has us on a collision course with ecological collapse and potential extinction, but hey that is #fakenews or tech will magically save us somehow. I abhor your limited viewpoint that pretends to have the best answers, but I will not be arrogant enough to say I have THE answer, only suggestions as to better directions to take.

                      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @10:59PM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @10:59PM (#658691)

                        Yeah, well, God I hate your complete inability to perceive that you're railing against anti-Capitalism rather than Capitalism.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:19PM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:19PM (#658701)

                          Nope, such absolute property rights are the basis of capitalism. I don't advocate pure communism nor pure capitalism. Your inability to see beyond the ideological version of capitalism is the problem here. The Earth and its resources are finite, pure capitalism would only work if every single human had the same exact option to create competing industries. Many people think they could do better, but much of humanity's capital is licked away in private coffers.

                          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:30PM

                            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:30PM (#659077) Journal
                            The reification of imaginary property is not capitalism, it's a con game.
                            --
                            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:59AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:59AM (#658773)

            Those subtitles are in demand because the content is in demand.

            Those subtitles are only possible because there is existing content from which the subtitles can be almost mindlessly crafted.

            Strike a deal, or fuck off. What don't you get about that? WHAT DON'T YOU GET?

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Monday March 26 2018, @09:55PM (7 children)

          by Arik (4543) on Monday March 26 2018, @09:55PM (#658674) Journal
          "the rights holders."

          That would be all of us. Human rights, you may have heard the phrase?

          The idea that only big corporations have rights, and the practice of calling their privileges 'rights,' need to be rejected. Instead you've clearly swallowed them whole.

          You'll get what you deserve, but the rest of us don't deserve to have to share it with you.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:01PM (#658694)

            Or do only savages think a person's sexual tissues should be off limits to other people's knives?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:05AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:05AM (#658777)

            Or do only savages think a person's sexual tissues should be off limits to other people's knives?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:50AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:50AM (#658791)

              You're not the only hardline individualist/right-to-life-above-all-else advocate out here, as I've explained to you before. Posts at -1 are NOT "censored", and even if you stubbornly and incorrectly disagree, more -1, Spam mods will not help your situation.

              Please stop spamming your posts when authoritarians mod them down.

              • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:02AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:02AM (#658800)

                If that's the default, then I define that as censorship.

                So... suck my intact cock.

                • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:23PM

                  by Arik (4543) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:23PM (#659072) Journal
                  For some strange reason you chose to post this to me, multiple times. I don't hide any messages, regardless of score. So, at least insofar as myself, apparently the intended reader, moderation will have no effect on me seeing your comment.

                  I'm not ignoring it because I don't see it, I'm ignoring it because it seems senseless and off-topic.
                  --
                  If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:41PM (1 child)

            by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:41PM (#658960) Journal

            From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

            • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:20PM

              by Arik (4543) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:20PM (#659070) Journal
              "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

              A document that gets off to a good start and deliberately goes completely off the rails by the end.

              Sad, that.
              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 26 2018, @08:45PM (10 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Monday March 26 2018, @08:45PM (#658649)

        Do you sincerely believe that subtitles in commercial releases just come into existence spontaneously?
        Could you believe that maybe, just maybe, there could be people involved, and therefore paid, in the process of formatting such subtitles? Would those people have a vested interest, and long relationships, in the pursuit of the quite silly activity of clamping down on people providing for free what they provide not for free?

        I know you're actively ditching horse carriages, but I sure as hell won't let you get away with not buying my whips!

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:12PM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:12PM (#658666)

          Time and effort went into crafting (that is, finding) content that the world considers valuable.

          Now, people want to take all that hard work, pretend that it was theirs, slap a customized sticker on it, and either give it away or sell it for "donations" and ad revenue.

          It's theft.

          Or, do you believe that creators shouldn't have control over the content that they craft? Are you suggesting that as soon as said content is in the world, it belongs to everyone? That's starting to look like the Tragedy of the Commons, which of course means it's a bad idea; there needs to be an owner, and you have 2 choices for that: State ownership, or "private" ownership. Which do you think is best (in this case)?

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 26 2018, @09:15PM (3 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Monday March 26 2018, @09:15PM (#658668)

            Just asking, in case my kid mistakenly wants to ever go there: where did you learn to read ?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:35PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:35PM (#658670)

              Your last sentence reveals quite clearly that your intention was sarcasm.

              Let me help you by using your own stupid analogy: The vested interests aren't forcing people to buy whips. Rather, the upstarts are stealing buggies and re-painting them.

              Your view of the situation is entirely wrong.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:21AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:21AM (#658817)

                No, it is more like someone modifying the whips for left handed people and the buggy and whip folks getting pissed about it.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:40AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:40AM (#658829)

                  Let's see... The OP wrote:

                  The vested interests aren't forcing people to buy whips. Rather, the upstarts are stealing buggies and re-painting them.

                  Now, let's replace "buggy" with "whips":

                  The vested interests aren't forcing people to buy whips. Rather, the upstarts are stealing whips and re-jiggering them.

                  Yup. You haven't rebutted the OP; you haven't put forward a new point; you haven't changed the argument.

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:00AM (4 children)

            by dry (223) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:00AM (#658728) Journal

            Most all creative works are built on others creative works. That's the way it is with humanity and has been probably since before we were human. It's part of what makes us human, telling stories is a survival trait, the tribe that told stories about the croc in the waterhole survived better then the tribe that didn't tell stories.
            Now we have idiots who don't understand that stories lead to more stories and want to lock everything up without thinking about where new stories will come from.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:08AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:08AM (#658779)

              No one is arguing otherwise.

              What people are arguing is that you need to interact with others voluntarily—build on others' work with their blessing (or at least without their explicit disapproval).

              Get it yet?

              • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:53AM (2 children)

                by dry (223) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:53AM (#658795) Journal

                Why? Building on others work is a natural right.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:04AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:04AM (#658801)

                  I suggest you work with others to ensure that you are indeed building on others work rightfully.

                  Until you have that confirmation, you are existing in a perilous fashion.

                  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:49PM

                    by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:49PM (#658965) Journal

                    What steps should an individual take to convince a publisher to become willing to work with said individual rather than continue a blanket policy of refusing to work with individuals?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by wonkey_monkey on Monday March 26 2018, @09:50PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday March 26 2018, @09:50PM (#658673) Homepage

      Even if creating subtitles does indeed violate copyright, what do the copyright holders gain by stopping the practice? All it does is mean that more people will buy their movies.

      Not necessarily. It could mean more people can pirate versions of their movies which are not subtitled, and apply the fan-made subtitles to them.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 26 2018, @11:00PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 26 2018, @11:00PM (#658692) Journal

      What am I missing here?

      Stupidity in the first place with (lawyering) malice coming close behind.
      Common-sense does not apply. Ever. Stop trying to use it, it's a waste of time.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:14AM (#658752)

      What you're missing is that the owners of these copyrighted products aren't interested in money. The heads of the corporations have more money than they already know what to do with. If they wanted more money, via additional sales, then of course they wouldn't mind if someone else made their products more attractive, and for free to boot.

      What they want is control. They enjoy being able to say who gets what, and who doesn't. They also enjoy squashing little ants like us who might dare to transgress against the dictates of our masters.

      Once you understand what they really want, their actions stand explained.

  • (Score: 1) by conn8d on Monday March 26 2018, @07:21PM (7 children)

    by conn8d (6887) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 26 2018, @07:21PM (#658598)
    Hard to feel for the guy:

    In addition, he was told to pay 217,000 Swedish krona ($26,400) to be taken from advertising and donation revenues collected through the site.

    Not only what he was doing was shaky, but he was taking in money as well. He should've at least moved to Cambodia like Gottfrid Svartholm Warg from Pirate Bay.

    At the end, it was useful to clarify the law though:

    The Court found that subtitles can only be created and distributed after permission has been obtained from copyright holders. Doing so outside these parameters amounts to copyright infringement.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:36PM (#658641)

      Lawl whatevs.

      This case just highlights the stupidity of copyright law and more generally the competitive structure of our human society. One day we'll move past it and people like you will be the subject of intense debates trying to figure out "what was WRONG with them?"

      This is very similar to the fight over right to modify tractors. What should people do if a corporation refuses to allow translations? Too bad humanity? Fuck off with that idea.

      As for the revenue on his site, it wasn't profiting off of the copyrighted works. His site provided a valuable service for many users that was not being provided by the copyright holders and in no way harmed them. Who cares if he was able to generate revenue to fund the service??? Oh right, the same corporate apologists

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:05PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:05PM (#658696)

      Unfortunate, but legally speaking this is the correct ruling. Subtitles are a direct translation of the dialogue in the movie and, as such, are clearly a derivative work. Therefore, they cannot be distributed without permission of the copyright holder of the original work.

      As a matter of policy, it's better to allow the fansubs, but as a matter of law, it's not legal to distribute them. Realistically, they're better for everyone, so copyright holders should go easy on them, but honestly I would draw the line at doing it for profit myself.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:53AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:53AM (#658725)

        Unfortunate, but legally speaking this is the correct ruling. Subtitles are a direct translation of the dialogue in the movie and, as such, are clearly a derivative work. Therefore, they cannot be distributed without permission of the copyright holder of the original work.

        Being a "derivative work" does NOT, by itself, mean that the copyright holder of the original has any rights over it. The question is, does fair use apply to subtitles or not? To me, it seems clear that it does, and the copyright holder of the movie should go pound sand. For example, the subtitles are a rather poor replacement for a movie, and I see no flourishing market of official subtitle-sellers that can be impacted by people providing them for free.

        Anyway, the court obviously thought otherwise, and therefore hearing-impaired people, foreigners, people trying to learn a language, and others that need those subtitles, should go fuck themselves.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:18AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:18AM (#658754)

          I don't believe Sweden has a "fair use" exception.

          • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:44PM

            by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:44PM (#658962) Journal

            In countries without a fair use exemption, how do movie reviews get published? Wouldn't the brief summary of a movie's plot in a review of said movie be a "derivative work" of said movie?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @05:47PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @05:47PM (#659060)

            > I don't believe Sweden has a "fair use" exception.

            Don't know about Sweden, however...

            Fair use is NOT an exception; fair use is a right, and copyright is an exception.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:02PM

      by Rivenaleem (3400) on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:02PM (#658996)

      If I wanted to 3D-print, or knit or papier-maché for myself and others cases for iPhones, do I need to get Apple's permission? The Subtitles are a wrapper for the original product, which enhance it for the end-user. Perhaps if I sold them as "Genuine Apple Endorsed iPhone covers" I might be breaching trademark or some advertising claims, but if from the outset they are marketed as "Fan-made products for your bought and paid for device" then there shouldn't be a problem.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:33PM (#659036)

    sharing words with one another is a crime. you wouldn't steal a handbag would you?

(1)