Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday March 26 2018, @06:33PM   Printer-friendly
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.


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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2