SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Site That Provides Fan-Made Subtitles Loses Copyright Infringement Appeal
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 66 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I think my career is ruined!
(Score: 1) by conn8d on Monday March 26 2018, @07:21PM (7 children)
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:
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:36PM
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)
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)
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)
I don't believe Sweden has a "fair use" exception.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:44PM
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
> 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
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.