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This discussion has been archived.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.
In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls.
-- Lenny Bruce
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:12PM (9 children)
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)
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)
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)
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
Let's see... The OP wrote:
Now, let's replace "buggy" with "whips":
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)
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)
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)
Why? Building on others work is a natural right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:04AM (1 child)
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
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?