Slashdot Mirror


NetFlix Caught Stealing DivX Subtitles From Finnish Pirates

An anonymous reader writes with word that NetFlix recently opened its streaming service in Finland and was promptly caught stealing movie subtitles from a local DivX community site. How were they caught? NetFlix failed to remove references to the pirate site in the subtitles.

195 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. but they will waste no time by v1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    telling us how piracy is hurting their business and costing them money!

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:but they will waste no time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article summary is deliberately inflammatory. It's not "stealing" - it's exactly the sort of sharing which I assume a "pirate" would support. The original DivX site hasn't lost the use of these subtitles. Indeed, it's been given free advertising. The best thing it could do is issue a press release congratulating Netflix for acting in the spirit of cooperation and free dissemination. Everyone wins.

    2. Re:but they will waste no time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think Netflix has done much whining about piracy. They don't produce much in the way of content.

    3. Re:but they will waste no time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article summary is deliberately inflammatory. It's not "stealing" - it's exactly the sort of sharing which I assume a "pirate" would support. The original DivX site hasn't lost the use of these subtitles. Indeed, it's been given free advertising. The best thing it could do is issue a press release congratulating Netflix for acting in the spirit of cooperation and free dissemination. Everyone wins.

      Except that they demand money.
      Ripping of some ip and sharing it for free is different from ripping it of and selling it for profit.

    4. Re:but they will waste no time by Kidbro · · Score: 4, Informative

      that would probably violate a GNU license equivalent

      No. GNU licenses have never been about restricting commercial use, only prohibitory use.

    5. Re:but they will waste no time by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see how that means it's stealing.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:but they will waste no time by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But with GNU you have the right to modify and redistribute and I kinda doubt Netflix allows that to occur so if it were licensed under GNU they would be in violation.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:but they will waste no time by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      The article summary is deliberately inflammatory. It's not "stealing" - it's exactly the sort of sharing which I assume a "pirate" would support. The original DivX site hasn't lost the use of these subtitles. Indeed, it's been given free advertising. The best thing it could do is issue a press release congratulating Netflix for acting in the spirit of cooperation and free dissemination. Everyone wins.

      Of course it's not stealing - but it is according to NetFlix (when others do it).

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    8. Re:but they will waste no time by Jiro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, it's hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, since Netflix opposes piracy. Instead of sending out s press release commending Netflix, they should ask Netflix to send out a press release saying that piracy is good because it's nothing more than what Netflix does themselves.

    9. Re:but they will waste no time by lindi · · Score: 4, Informative

      As far as I can see divxfinland uses the CC-NC-SA 3.0 license. This is does not allow commercial usage.

    10. Re:but they will waste no time by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But with GNU you have the right to modify and redistribute and I kinda doubt Netflix allows that to occur so if it were licensed under GNU they would be in violation.

      Not only does netflix require that all shows they distributed be tried down with DRM, they even forbid the author from including a blurb at the start of the movie telling viewers were to get a DRM-free version.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:but they will waste no time by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      Netflix is not the industry though.

      netflix wants DRM on their streaming, as they aren't charging buy a movie/show prices and need your stuff to expire when you stop.paying.

      netflix has a place in the world even without copyright law though, in fact a stronger place I imagine, they could still charge for their convenience, and their suggestions.

      netflix is most likely going to get sunk by the industry in the next couple of years.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    12. Re:but they will waste no time by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

      I'm saying when a corporation does it, it's not illegal.

    13. Re:but they will waste no time by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      this surprises me. I would really expect pirate groups to stick to free and/or open principles.

      I guess they're just another group of hypocrites, ugh.

      note: NC is neither free or open in the sense of the word used in this context. In fact, it could be argued that making the subs themselves available on any site with ads is a license violation, It's almost impossible to safely distribute in any real way something that is marked NC.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    14. Re:but they will waste no time by jpapon · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be very smart to put your name and copyright on a file which is being disseminated with pirated material. Just sayin.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    15. Re:but they will waste no time by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Except that they demand money.

      They don't demand extra money for subtitles. And the subtitles are not copyrighted by the pirates in the first place. You can't copyright someone's work by just transcribing it.

      Ripping of some ip and sharing it for free is different from ripping it of and selling it for profit.

      Correct. Giving it away is worse. Damages for copyright infringement are not based on whether you profited from the infringement, but whether the copyright holder was deprived of profit. If you infringe and sell the copies, you are competing with the content owner and depriving them of some profit, but if you give the content away for free, you are undermining their whole business model and depriving them of much more profit.

      But in this particular case, the pirates don't hold the copyright, and weren't charging for the subtitles anyway, so none of this applies.

    16. Re:but they will waste no time by Desler · · Score: 2

      You have that backwards. Netflix is forced to have DRM on the content they stream or else they wouldn't be able to license it.

    17. Re:but they will waste no time by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Trading your rip for quid pro quo access to other rips would be considered proffiting in most places.

      Not that I agree with MPAA/RIAA methods for extracting "damages"...

    18. Re:but they will waste no time by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      How is releasing content under CC-NC-SA 3.0 license opposing free and/or open principles?

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    19. Re:but they will waste no time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that they demand money.

      They don't demand extra money for subtitles. And the subtitles are not copyrighted by the pirates in the first place. You can't copyright someone's work by just transcribing it.

      Incorrect. Under the Finnish copyright law, the translator has the copyright to the work (i.e. the translation). But since it's a derivative work, the author of the original work also holds copyrights. Unless the original copyright has lapsed, in which case the translator gets the sole copyright.

    20. Re:but they will waste no time by icebraining · · Score: 1

      The fact that they don't comply with your expectations doesn't make them hypocrites. If DivX Finland doesn't copy the films for commercial purposes, using a non-commercial license is not inconsistent.

    21. Re:but they will waste no time by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless you, as a content creator, wish to license your content to Netflix DRM-free. As the GP's link shows, they won't let you do that.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    22. Re:but they will waste no time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know how copyright law is in Finland, but here in the US it is copyright infringement as the subtitles (especially translations) do demonstrate an authorship. And even if it isn't copyright infringement it raises the question how much other material they have acquired this way.

    23. Re:but they will waste no time by tibit · · Score: 1

      Ah, under copyright laws in plenty of jurisdictions, the copyright in derivative works is usually shared by both the original holders and the authors of derivative works. Yes, you can quite happily copyright an unauthorized translation. It doesn't let you distribute it or do anything else really, but you can claim copyright in it all right. So, yes, funnily enough, both original copyright holders and the translators share copyright on the translations. Any copying requires permission from both. So just because it's an unauthorized translation doesn't mean that the original rights holders can claim the translation as their own. Such a translation is in limbo, in a way.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    24. Re:but they will waste no time by fatphil · · Score: 1

      It is a fairly common rhetorical technique to ironically use the language of the opponent's own rhetoric against them.

      Sure, this is netflix profitting from the work of others, but that isn't as punchy.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    25. Re:but they will waste no time by Nyder · · Score: 2

      Also, it's hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, since Netflix opposes piracy. Instead of sending out s press release commending Netflix, they should ask Netflix to send out a press release saying that piracy is good because it's nothing more than what Netflix does themselves.

      Does Netflix oppose piracy? They don't produce anything, they only stream stuff that other people made, so it would seem to me piracy isn't a big concern of theirs. Getting decent prices from the studios would be there concern, other online streaming/DVD rentals would be their concern, but pirating? They probably care less.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    26. Re:but they will waste no time by mpe · · Score: 1

      GNU is not about prohibiting use, it only takes effect when you distribute a GNU licensed item. All those "agreements" you click through when installing Win32 GNU licensed software is totally asinine because you don't have to agree until you distribute the software.
      Probably down to the packager/distributor thinking that the GPL is some kind of EULA. Which it is most definitly not. Most likely they don't know how to either remove the EULA bit from the install dialogue or to set the text to "There is no EULA with this sofware" :)

    27. Re:but they will waste no time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, it's hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, since Netflix opposes piracy. Instead of sending out s press release commending Netflix, they should ask Netflix to send out a press release saying that piracy is good because it's nothing more than what Netflix does themselves.

      But netflix isnt stealing anything. They are taking subtitles which arent copyrighted in the US, them taking and using the subtitles costs no one money, they arent misapproriating anyones original content, they arent taking someone elses ideas and branding them as their own or making a profit off them.

      Netflix doesnt approve or support of the theft of digital content that is legally owned by someone. Taking subtitles from a source that makes them publicly avaible to anyone in the world for free with no copyright isnt stealing.

      Of course Im sure if it supported your argument you would say that anyone that borrows a book from the library is a pirate Or that video rental stores promote piracy. No matter how stupid something is people will spew it out because they think it justifies their argument which was created with no thought or intelligence at all purely for the sake of trying to sound righteous infront of a bunch of strangers.

    28. Re:but they will waste no time by Ignacio · · Score: 1

      ... arent copyrighted in the US ...

      Irrelevant.

      ... a source that makes them publicly avaible to anyone in the world for free with no copyright ...

      [citation needed]

    29. Re:but they will waste no time by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright in the US is automatic, so they are taking copyrighted information.
      Absent a specific licence for use, there is no licence. Posting on a public website does not constitute a licence; certainly not a commercial use licence. This means they are using it without permission.
      So they are, in fact, pirating this information.

        Incidently, in regards to your claim that Netflix not stealing anything: neither are the pirates.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    30. Re:but they will waste no time by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your post uses words that deprive me of profit. Please send me a check for $200,000,000,000.00 right away. The flaw is that companies can demand outrageous sums. I would support copyright if the claimed losses were attaced to their TAXED income.

      You claim that you lost 20 billion? Sounds great, the IRS will be wondering when you will be sending in your taxes on the value of that property.

      this will solve the rampant BS that is copyright overnight. Scumbags wont sit on old works hoarding them if they are taxed every year they are not in the public domain.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    31. Re:but they will waste no time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      oh I love that idea. How about for films its the actual box office gross profit that they get, since there is no net on any film made since 1930 (google that) Same with music owned by studios that own in excess of 5 million in profit.

    32. Re:but they will waste no time by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. If they don't make a,stand for free culture It's totally legit.

      and when I think about it, must subbers don't. At least in the anime scene they are very much for supporting the establishment as soon as a venue is offered.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    33. Re:but they will waste no time by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Because freedom and openness are both incompatible with NC.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    34. Re:but they will waste no time by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      they may not produce anything but they do pay a shit ton for their content.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    35. Re:but they will waste no time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      CC-NC-SA 3.0 is not a "free and/or open" license, and therefore it opposes "free and/or open" principles.

      Many people (including myself) consider GPL to also violate free and/or open principles, because it requires all derivatives to also be licensed under GPL. I can take MIT code and license it under something else if I want, but I can't do that with GPL, and therefore GPL is not "free as in freedom".

    36. Re:but they will waste no time by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      It really depends on how you define freedom and openness. I'd say the CC-NC-SA is quite apt for the goals it promotes - that small content creators release their work to be shared and reused throughout the Internet "informal" channels.

      That it doesn't offer full doesn't make it opposing open principles, it just offers a less permissive version of them; that's still promoting openness in my book. As you say, the GPL itself includes some restrictions, and even then it's held as the definition of "free and open" for many of us.

      Heck, even the MIT license places restrictions on what you an do (you cannot use the names of the copyright holders, you have to copy the license notice in all versions, etc), and therefore is not "free as in freedom"; there are still things you aren't allowed to do with MIT-licensed content. So by your definition it would be "opposing free and/or open principles" too, because the content under it is not in the public domain.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    37. Re:but they will waste no time by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Copyright in the US is automatic, but does it apply to subtitles? I think it may not, due to the original creation requirement, but it may, due to the fact that it's pieces of the script (which is clearly under copyright). This probably leans towards not copyrightable in the situation that the subtitles are created by a third party, rather than the movie studio.

    38. Re:but they will waste no time by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      This isn't "stealing" because of some bogus legal theory. This isn't stealing because they paid for the works in question and as a matter of law in the US of A those works are required to come with subtitles or closed captions.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    39. Re:but they will waste no time by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except that they demand money. Ripping of some ip and sharing it for free is different from ripping it of and selling it for profit.

      Bingo. Nail. Head. Bang. I'm a proud pirate (yarr!), and I love being able to give my friends access to movies and media they wouldn't otherwise be able to get on account of being too poor to afford it on their own. I don't charge (except postage and possibly the USB or SD Card cost), and I never will. It's counter to the spirit of it. Pirates recognize artists are entitled to compensation, and we tell people if they really like something to buy it or send money directly to the artist... and unsurprisingly a lot of my friends do just that. The fact is, most movies and TV episodes people only watch once or a couple of times. Take Hunger Games. I liked the movie, but I don't feel it has much replay value. So I'm not going to buy that. But NCIS? I psychotically love that show, and have picked up several disks on Bluray from pawn shops. It's something I'll be rewatching for years to come. Same with Battlestar Galactica or the new Batman trilogy. I've even sent money to the actors of Star Trek: TNG, because I love their work. And if I had more money, I'd probably go to concerts more than once in a blue moon.

      Piracy doesn't mean not paying money -- for most of us, it's a way to stay in touch with our collective culture without breaking the bank. When everyone is talking about the latest Batman movie, and you're too broke to go see it in theatres, you're going to come to me and say "Hey, I wanna see what all the fuss is about." Well, okay then, here's a copy. And a few months later, I'm over at their house, and there on their shelf is a new Bluray or DVD of it. I certainly didn't give it to them, and they probably wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't exposed them to it ahead of time.

      Piracy isn't anti-artist, it's very much pro-artist. It restores an element sadly lacking in today's market: Try before you buy. Netflix is the only thing that comes close, and you know what? I'm a pirate, and I have a Netflix. I love my Netflix -- it's cheap, and even with the DVD/bluray plans they have, I can get it faster than I can download it, at better quality, and it maintains my ratings so when I have a few extra bucks I can go back and look at my bucket list of things I wanna pickup the next time I'm out at the stores.

      This is how most pirates operate: We love music and movies. We love them so much, we want to share them with others. But since we're not millionaires but working stiffs like you, we help people make sure that when they buy something, they're going to enjoy it. No buyer's remorse when you're a pirate: Every purchase will be something you love, and supporting an artist who deserves it on the merits of his/her work, not marketing buzz.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    40. Re:but they will waste no time by Kidbro · · Score: 1

      You are correct, just as your fellow AC which pointed this out earlier. I apologize for my poor choice of words, and thank you for clarifying.
      The point I tried to make, is that whether the use is commercial or not is irrelevant. GNU licenses tend not to care about whether you charge for copies you make, only that the recipient is granted certain freedoms (which in practice makes commercial grade redistribution challenging, but that is beside the point).

    41. Re:but they will waste no time by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      This isn't hard; copyright says, "I will use my gang of armed men to prevent you from using your property in a way I claim is similar enough to what I think is a unique idea, in order to achieve my desires." *AA uses this to seek money. Finnish 'pirates' use this to restrict who may reuse. Different ends, same means.

      Had they used WTFPL they could have issued an awesome press releaase congratulating Netflix.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    42. Re:but they will waste no time by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

      The article summary is deliberately inflammatory. It's not "stealing" - it's exactly the sort of sharing which I assume a "pirate" would support. The original DivX site hasn't lost the use of these subtitles. Indeed, it's been given free advertising. The best thing it could do is issue a press release congratulating Netflix for acting in the spirit of cooperation and free dissemination. Everyone wins.

      Except that they demand money. Ripping of some ip and sharing it for free is different from ripping it of and selling it for profit.

      But in this case, it's ripping off IP that was part of ripping off IP and the second rip-off-er licensed the content that was originally ripped off. The pirates can't copyright what it takes to pirate the work (even American fair-use or derivative work laws don't cover straight-out copying). Pirating lives in a grey space (technically illegal but dubious in market impact depending on the case-by-case basis) and I don't think they have a peg-leg to stand on in this circumstance.

      But it still makes Netflix look stupid, especially when they leave in the reference to the pirate group.

    43. Re:but they will waste no time by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      It's not "stealing" -

      They took something without permission. They appropriated the titles without right or acknowledgement. Hence they stole it.

    44. Re:but they will waste no time by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if it's applicable in this situation, but In the US you can get a secondary copyright (not sure of the exact term) on for example a scanned reproduction of an old photo despite the original photo being in the public domain - zero original creation involved, just format-shifting (not sure if the same also applies to still-copyrighted works, but I think it does). That may be a special case put in to encourage the preservation of old photos into a more archivable medium though.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    45. Re:but they will waste no time by Immerman · · Score: 2

      They paid for distribution rights to the movies, NOT the 3rd-party subtitles. If the law requires them to have subtitles that weren't included with the movies then it is their responsibility to create/legally acquire subtitles to which they have distribution rights to distribute with the movies - it does NOT magically grant them rights to a 3rd party's work.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    46. Re:but they will waste no time by ixuzus · · Score: 1

      It may well be a bit more complicated than that. It appears that the subtitles in question were translated from English by amateurs, not produced in the US. There is precedent for translations being considered to contain sufficient creativity for their own copyright. If you look you will find lots of examples of copyrighted translations of works in the public domain.

      While the translation is (almost certainly) technically infringing on the original subtitles (I'm not if fair use could be applicable but I doubt it) it itself is probably a copyright derivative work. The original rights holder can probably take legal action against the parties who translated/distributed the Finnish subtitles but without gaining control of the rights I don't believe they could authorise their use.

    47. Re:but they will waste no time by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      It barely grants any rights at all.

      If I am a dj, I make a mix tape (free and similarly licensed), I release it, the use of an NC track makes it a violation (or at least potentially, this isn't settled).

      My promotion if myself, if I do something for money, could be construed as commercial.

      Essentially any (professional) artist that publicly does anything with an NC piece of art could be construed as violating the terms, and needs to act withing the realm of transformative fair use (which, while being murky, is better defined than commercial advantage).

      Were I a public figure, I could post a tweet with an NC image in it, and it would be the same as with a closed piece of work. A celebrities Twitter is specifically about staying relavant for commercial advantage.

      hell, any of those sites that pay for popular downloads would be explicitly illegal for you to upload it to.

      It's barely more open or free than shareware.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    48. Re:but they will waste no time by OhioJoe · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that means it's stealing.

      Correct. If they charged *more* for the subtitled movies, then it'd be wrong. I agree with how you suggested the site should capitalize on the irony and congratulate them through a press release.

      However, there is something to be said if they have gone on record lamenting piracy and then did this. But that still doesn't invalidate your point.

      --
      "Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
    49. Re:but they will waste no time by martypantsROK · · Score: 1

      They didn't charge more for the subtitled movie, but the movie was made available to more viewers because of the subtitling. Did they make more money from the movie because it was shown to people who otherwise would not have watched it without subtitles? Most likely they made money.

    50. Re:but they will waste no time by martypantsROK · · Score: 1

      borrowing a book is not a good analogy. They sold a movie viewing, to people who otherwise would not have viewed it without the subtitles

    51. Re:but they will waste no time by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      There is a difference between "lost income/profit" which those rights holders claim those huge amounts for (which normally would be taxed if actually realised), and "asset value" of the copyrighted work which should appear on their balance sheet already.

    52. Re:but they will waste no time by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's legally equivalent to shareware and freeware; it's unclear whether it can be used for self-promotion where the content is not distributed for money, only for publicity; and it doesn't allow for building a corpus of open content like a fully open license would do.

      However, CC-*-NC licenses allow for unlimited amateur work and redistribution, which is a step above what standard copyright allows even under free use terms. Given the "web 2.0" model of distributed content generation, that end-users can reuse the content without legal worries is a win toward freedom even if it doesn't go the extra mile and only some users can benefit from it.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    53. Re:but they will waste no time by mdielmann · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm sure you're a troll, but it needs to be said. Once upon a time, when unicorns and fairies roamed the earth, there was a real possibility that copyright would lapse. Nowadays, the possibility is only theoretical, and will only happen when the copyright holders stop bribing the lawmakers.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    54. Re:but they will waste no time by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      I question whether this is even piracy. If the DivX site community translated these subtitles themselves then it could be argued they are providing them under an open license. I certainly doubt they attach a copyright warning to them! If instead the subtitles are extracted from the title discs then Netflix are indeed guilty of piracy, although not against the DivX group.

      And yes, the use of "stealing" is typical headline trolling, especially on a site where any copyright discussion is guaranteed to contain at least 20 posters going off about why infringement isn't technically stealing.

    55. Re:but they will waste no time by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting question. Certainly translations are copyrightable, e.g. all the different Bibles or English versions of Tolstoy. In those cases the original content is out of copyright.

      However consider music transcriptions like guitar tablature. I believe that these are not considered a breach of copyright of the original work even when they contain lyrics. There were early court cases about this. Perhaps music is different because the transcription is an abstract representation, not the work itself.

      I suspect that, in the same way that most early guitar tab was actually ripped from existing copyright tab books, these transcriptions are studio-commissioned and extracted from the discs, making it a moot point.

    56. Re:but they will waste no time by jaymemaurice · · Score: 2

      So Netflix has a policy to stop side-channel sales and distribution? You mean you can't reach a new audience through Netflix and tell them to use a competing distribution channel?

      When is the last time you saw a commercial for CNN on Fox News?! You havent?? - CRY FOWL!

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    57. Re:but they will waste no time by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When is the last time you saw a commercial for CNN on Fox News?! You havent?? - CRY FOWL!

      And flip them the bird, if you're not too chicken.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    58. Re:but they will waste no time by Hatta · · Score: 1

      That would be understandable in itself. But Netflix won't let you distribute DRM-free content through Netflix either.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    59. Re:but they will waste no time by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      though the end users are protected if they are truly amateur with no ambition to become something else, the pieces aren't even safe from DMCA takedown notices.

      The license still.grants pretty much absolute control to the rights holder, and this is why I say It's not open or free. I wouldnt even say It's more open than closed.

      especially as "open" and "free" are pretty well defined by usage in this context.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    60. Re:but they will waste no time by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhh...didn't bother to actually read the link, did you? The content creator wanted to give it to Netflix DRM FREE and they refused to allow it, so the author wanted to tell people "hey after you get done watching this if you like it you can have a free copy" which again simply looks good on Netflix but again they refused.

      Lets face it, Netflix is the Ubisoft of video, they looooooves their DRM and they ain't gonna let anybody dare avoid their DRM crappiness, no way no how, even when the content creators don't want the shit!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    61. Re:but they will waste no time by eionmac · · Score: 1

      I did not know FINLAND was inside USA. I think the current pretenders to the Grand Duchy resident in Moscow would disagree, as would the Finland rsidents.

      --
      Regards Eion MacDonald
    62. Re:but they will waste no time by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is another group of hypocrites - if you actually knew what the word meant / could demonstrate being able to identify hypocrites.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    63. Re:but they will waste no time by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Pointing out hypocrisy is a form of the ad hominen fallacy. It does nothing to prove that the original argument (supporting piracy of movies, anti-gay, pro-life) is incorrect. Still it is useful for the hypocrite in that they should be forced to examine their own principles, or outworkings of those principles, for flaws.

      You only see your example on the news because they are scandals, it doesn't really tell us about frequency. At least in the case of piracy, religious people are more inclined to follow the goverment's laws on copyright.

    64. Re:but they will waste no time by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      GPL or CC-BY-SA content is not safe from DMCA takedown notices either. I don't see how that's relevant.

      The license still.grants pretty much absolute control to the rights holder

      How come? The rights holder can't control non-commercial use after he has released it. So it's "open for non-commercial use".

      There is not *one* definition of open and free, the BSD-GPL license wars prove it. Sure -NC is less open than those, but it isn't necessarily closed either.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    65. Re:but they will waste no time by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Gpl or by-sa can get notices, but they would fall flat. Various sites actually have the rights to the content. In the case of nc, the submitter is fine in their actions, but once notified the hosting site (if It's any of the popular free ones) must be removed, because safe harbor is not the same as common carriers.

      Free to use as chosen is a consistent (and has been from the start) part of the definition of free and open in the software movements, and as they set the tone for later free culture movements, I would think they are contextually the place to go.

      Rights holders can very little control the type of unambiguously non commercial use permitted by the nc clause (with the exception of file sharing networks that are explicitly permitted).

      In some ways it is less free than shareware (and in other ways more for certain), but it is a quite proprietary license, and worse, the attempt to make the NC clause broad has resulted in a license that barely, grants rights beyond fair use (with only file sharing by non public figures being the increased right that comes to mind).

      I would argue that is not closer to free than not.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    66. Re:but they will waste no time by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Netflix is an American company. I would imagine that the person who lifted the subtitles was probably in the US, too, although I admit that is merely an assumption on my part. However, there's no indication at all that the Netflix employee who did this was in Finland, at least not in the summary.
      This would mean US copyright law most likely would apply.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    67. Re:but they will waste no time by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      And you're an insulting prick, but I don't let that bother me.

      Netflix is certainly paying the legit publisher for the original movie, but if the subtitles were from the original publisher, they wouldn't mention the Finnish pirate website in them, would they?
      I would think (IANAL) that the translations would be a derivative work, and therefore would have a copyright owned by the translator, as well as the possibility of one owned by the studio.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    68. Re:but they will waste no time by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      So none of Weird Al's songs are covered by copyright? Awesome!!

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    69. Re:but they will waste no time by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      According to the USA, it is. :P

      I'd assume the Netflix employee was in the USA. It's really not relevant where the source of the subs was, as long as the copying action happened within the USA.
      At least, that's my understanding of it, and IANAL.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  2. Maybe they were taking hints from ubisoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  3. From TFA by MicktheMech · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Online TV giant Netflix was closed captions unauthorized use of his pants down..."

    I predict "unauthorized use of his pants down" to be the new "not want".

    1. Re:From TFA by Hentes · · Score: 1

      It's because Slashdot stole most of the good Google translations and only the lousy ones remained in stock.

  4. "Stealing" from Pirates by Galestar · · Score: 1

    Makes total sense!

    --
    AccountKiller
  5. Google translate caught with his pants down by negablade · · Score: 5, Funny
    Methinks Google translate is having trouble with Finnish to English. From TFA

    Online TV giant Netflix was closed captions unauthorized use of his pants down, when the Finnish users ...

    1. Re:Google translate caught with his pants down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No that is normal in Finland, we like to get around with our pants down for Google.
      Possibly NSFW.

    2. Re:Google translate caught with his pants down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Keeping in line with illegal translations, I'll give you my own translation of the article from Ilta-Sanomat (since Google translation may have missed a couple of nuances):

      Netflix, who opened their service in Finland on thursday, is using crowdsourced subtitles without permission. According to a copyright entity, even translations of subtitles done by hobbyists are illegal.

        Network entertainment giants Netflix was caught red-handed when Finnish users began using their service on thursday. At the beginning of the translations the creator of the subtitles is marked as DivX Finland, which is an Internet community working on translating movies and television series into Finnish.

        DivX Finland shares their subtitles free on the Internet, but according to the licensing rights on their site the usage of those subtitles for commercial purposes is prohibited.

        DivX Finland admin Jarmo Hakala found out about the issue Thursday evening on IRC-chat and received a screenshot for proof.

        - "Oops. :) It's nice that they find the subtitles relevant, but they could've at least asked for permission. I'm sure we'll have a nice discussion with Netflix tomorrow", said Hakala thursday evening on the Facebook page of DivX Finland.

        Ilta-sanomat was able to get hold of Hakala via telephone on Friday.

        - "I feel mostly amused. We're not taking this too seriously. We would've given permission, should they have asked for it. Netflix could've avoided this hassle", said Hakala to Ilta-Sanomat.

        - "But many (in our community) have felt a bit bad, since there's money and commercialism involved. Someone has taken voluntary work for profit and called it their own", continues hakala.

        According to copyright holders' representative Antti Kotilainen, one could say that it in this case something has been stolen from a thief. Legally amateur subtitles even for non-commercial use is not legal, nor does DivX Finland have the copyright for the translations.

        - "It is clear that what DivX Finland does is illegal. As for Netflix, their operations should be governed by contracts that they have done with (program) copyright holders", says Kotilainen to Ilta-Sanomat.

        According to Kotilainen the subtitles do not become legal just because Netflix started using them.

        Kotilainen says that copyright law allows making translations for personal use and copying them to friends and family, but not sharing them openly online.

        - "Translation is from copyright point of view a copy. If you place one on a netsite, you need copyright holder's permission to do so."

        The Finnish representative of Netflix has promised to comment the issue fairly soon.

        Netflix, a U.S. company, broadcasts movies, TV-series and documentaries on the Internet for a monthly fee of 7.99 euros. It has over 27 million customers on three continents.

    3. Re:Google translate caught with his pants down by digitig · · Score: 2

      All your briefs are belong to us.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  6. Stealing subtitles? by Hentes · · Score: 1

    And the people who wrote the subtitles stole them from the movie script whose rights Netflix licences. I fail to see what's the problem here, maybe someone who speaks Finnish can explain.

    1. Re:Stealing subtitles? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2

      That's what I was thinking. Technically, the copyright owner owns the rights to derivative works. I don't see this as hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, Netflix owns very little content. If the studios did it, then OK, I see that as hypocrisy in a way. But people complaining that someone stole something from thieves? That's a different kind of special right there.

    2. Re:Stealing subtitles? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well obviously not, or there would be no way to tell.
      I assume that they did their own translation, something that costs money (unless you know a translator who works for free) and is not a one to one relationship.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Stealing subtitles? by Desler · · Score: 1

      They didn't steal "subtitles" they apparently stole some new thing called "subtiles".

    4. Re:Stealing subtitles? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Technically, the copyright owner owns the rights to derivative works. I don't see this as hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, Netflix owns very little content. If the studios did it, then OK, I see that as hypocrisy in a way.

      It's actually the other way around, for the reason you note... The studios own the copyrights, so if you make an unauthorized derivative work, they could claim that as copyright owner, they have implied rights in that work too. Netflix doesn't own the content, but is just a licensee, so the studios would have to grant them a license to the implied third-party derivative work, which starts getting a little sticky.

    5. Re:Stealing subtitles? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's what I was thinking. Technically, the copyright owner owns the rights to derivative works.

      No, he does not. Because it involves the creative work of the translator. This translation is probably an infringing derivative work, and the original copyright owner could stop it being published, but could not claim it as his own property.

      If I write a Spider-Man fanfic, Marvel cant just take it and publish it as their own. They might sue me, but they can't take my work.

    6. Re:Stealing subtitles? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Technically, the copyright owner owns the rights to derivative works.

      In the sense that you need their permission, yes.
      But the original creator does not own all the rights - you will also need the permission of those that created the derivative.
      You have to satisfy both of them to publish legally.

    7. Re:Stealing subtitles? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      It's actually the other way around, for the reason you note... The studios own the copyrights, so if you make an unauthorized derivative work, they could claim that as copyright owner, they have implied rights in that work too. Netflix doesn't own the content, but is just a licensee, so the studios would have to grant them a license to the implied third-party derivative work, which starts getting a little sticky.

      No, they don't have any rights to unauthorized derivative works. What saves them in practice is that if you "steal" a movie from Netflix, and Netflix "steals" subtitles from you, you are not in a position to take them to court. (There _have_ been people calling the police because someone stole drugs from them, which is a bloody stupid thing to do. And I read about one case where the police successfully arrested both the thief, and the victim of the theft for drug possession).

    8. Re:Stealing subtitles? by Wandering+Voice · · Score: 1

      I would agree, but supposedly copyright law says that I cannot download a movie which I have already own on disc. Supposedly, I only have license to consume the media in the format I purchased it, and with all of its limitations and failures. As Netflix did not license those subtitles, they had committed commercial infringement. If they wanted to use subtitles, they should have made the subtitles themselves, or gotten them from the studios they licensed the videos from.

      I disagree with the laws as they are, and have already voted with my wallet (haha) by having canceled Netflix, stopped buying movies, and do not go to theaters. Maybe Netflix has enough net income to speak to Congress and have their concerns heard..

  7. Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It has been shown that Netflix also used portuguese community generated subtitle files for its Brazilian site. Netflix used it with errors and all. I don't think that its illegal, technically... but IANAL.

    Here is the source [http://blog.lancamentosnetflix.com.br/2012/09/netflix-baixando-legendas-da-internet.html]
    Sorry, i don't know how to create the fancy links in the comment. :(

    1. Re:Not the first time by kingturkey · · Score: 2

      Use HTML:

      <a href=url_goes_here>text goes here</a>

      text goes here

      Or:

      <URL:http://example.com/>

      http://example.com/

  8. Interesting, I wonder who's fault it is... by Ecuador · · Score: 2

    I mean I am sure the CEO of netflix did not give an order "hey, get pirated subtitles - I am sure they are professional quality and won't contain profanities etc that could get us in trouble".
    So, somewhere in the chain of passing out the requirement for, I assume, low cost translation, some "bright mind" had this idea. It is very likely that even the actual translator paid to do the work thought he/she might save some time!
    But in general, it would be a great thing for someone like NetFlix to hire a well known sub-release group for their translations, but I really don't see that happening...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Interesting, I wonder who's fault it is... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Why would profanities get them in trouble? You realize that Netflix streams plenty of R-rate movies, right?

    2. Re:Interesting, I wonder who's fault it is... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      So, somewhere in the chain of passing out the requirement for, I assume, low cost translation, some "bright mind" had this idea.

      I suspect that they probably contract out the work, and are not going to care because they already went with the lowest bidder.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Interesting, I wonder who's fault it is... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes, and?

    4. Re:Interesting, I wonder who's fault it is... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Foreign films' ratings are assigned weirdly sometimes. The rating could be carried over from the original culture, but contain elements that are appropriate in the importing culture, or the wrong rating could be applied due to artistic styles that in the importing culture are used to indicate appropriateness for age groups that it wasn't intended for.

      There are lots of ways it can go such that the language in the translation might not match up with the rating, and pirate subbers don't have any motivation to do anything but the most accurate (appearing) translation they can.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Interesting, I wonder who's fault it is... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      . It is very likely that even the actual translator paid to do the work thought he/she might save some time!

      Quite possibly a translator who is about to receive their pink slip, and possibly a lawsuit, for the costs to have the translations redone that _they_ were paid to do, but chose to supply third party translations instead.

  9. It is only a crime ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... If you are not powerful enough to get away with it.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  10. hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stealing? How? Were the pirates deprived of the subtitles? The Slashtard hypocritical use of "stealing" then whining when the "MAFIAA" uses it the same way is hilarious.

    1. Re:hypocrites by Jiro · · Score: 1

      It's stealing by the standards of the people who did the stealing.

      It's not hypocritical to say
      1) it's not stealing but
      2) it's what you call stealing

    2. Re:hypocrites by poity · · Score: 1

      That mentality wins you small battles, but loses you the war. If Slashdotters can stop being petty and embrace open sharing wherever it occurs, then we will have the high ground when it makes that argument again in stories about piracy crackdowns. Right now we're using kid's logic.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  11. Re:subtiles by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Informative

    Every summary contains an obvious typo, formatting error or similar glitch to encourage people to post and to increase ad traffic. Try putting an oblivious mistake into one of your posts and see how long it takes for people to respond to that rather than your original point...

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  12. It's stealing royalties by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The people that should have made money from writing those subtitles and that probably have done so for Finnish Television or Cinema companies, have not been paid, nor has their product been used. That means that these people are deprived of royalties in favour of illegally obtained translations that have violated the copyright of the show in question.

    Either that, or the whole model doesn't make sense, take your pick.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  13. Google Translate by cwarrior · · Score: 1

    First sentence of original article translated by Google from Finnish into English ... "Online TV giant Netflix was closed captions unauthorized use of his pants down, when the Finnish users began to use the service on Thursday." Unauthorized use of his pants down?

    1. Re:Google Translate by 1u3hr · · Score: 2

      Unauthorized use of his pants down?

      And that's why Netflix didn't just use Google translate to make their own subtitles -- I've done that when I had no alternative, and while you can follow what's happening, obviously idioms are a problem, you get lots of wacky stuff like that..

  14. Capitalism at work by SlashRAH · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is an excellent example of capitalism at work: they went with the lowest-cost supplier!

  15. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by bigdavex · · Score: 1

    Regardless, it's not stealing because the DivX community still have them.

    --
    -Dave
  16. Re:Arrrrgg...... by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    They watch Arrrr-rated movies

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  17. Re:Fair enough... by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The pirates are stealing from them (from the whole industry), so what's wrong with stealing a little from pirates?

    Well, apart from the fact that it's not stealing, it's unlicensed copying, nothing.

    I guess these pirates can see how it feels now.

    Probably: great; I would be laughing like hell if I had done this and Netflix took my subtitles.

    However, you are completely missing the point here. There are some of us who think it's okay to "pirate" and do so. There are others, like myself, that feel that unlicensed copying should be allowed in many more circumstances but don't feel like breaking the law. Until now there's been a third group which is benefitting from the laws, but was following them. Finally there's been group, such as congressmen's children, which are breaking the law because they can get away with it.

    What we are seeing now is that in fact, there's no third group. The RIAA "pirates" music for their ads. The big media distribution firms demand adverts on other people's YouTube videos because of some real or false positive fair rights use of their material. The media distribution companies, like Netflix, are completely happy to "steal" material from anywhere they feel like. These people do things that, if you did them, would end you up in jail or paying hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines. They pay nothing and rarely even apologise.

    This is all about the Amercan corporate royalty and their "Droit de Seigneur" with your ideas, privacy and creations. This is not news because the copying is immoral; it is news because, it's yet another slip of the front and makes it 100% clear that you too are plebs and the only thing wrong is letting you know it.

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  18. Re:subtiles by JustOK · · Score: 1, Troll

    Fn idiot. Why the hell do you end with an elipse???

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  19. Copying != Stealing by cpghost · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the n-th time, repeat after me: copying != stealing. The Finnish group still has access to its subtitles, they were merely copied, not moved/stolen. If we complain that the MAFIAA uses wrong terms in its campaign against free file sharing, so we should also refrain from using the same flawed terminology.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Copying != Stealing by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

      But they did not get credit for their work. The correct term here is plagiarize. And Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name.

    2. Re:Copying != Stealing by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Sure they did:

      How were they caught? NetFlix failed to remove references to the pirate site in the subtitles.

    3. Re:Copying != Stealing by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

      Caught is not the same as giving attribution.

    4. Re:Copying != Stealing by brit74 · · Score: 1

      But they did not get credit for their work. The correct term here is plagiarize.

      Actually, the pirates did (inadvertently) get credited for their work. The summary says "Netflix failed to remove references to the pirate site". I'd say that counts as getting credit for their work.

      Besides, it's kind of a weird paradox to say that NetFlix plagarized the pirates. It's a bit like - if I gave a speech in public, then someone writes down my words, and then I copy-and-pasted the text - now I'm guilty of plagarizing the textual version of the speech I originally wrote. Generally speaking, people don't like plagarism because it's people taking credit for ideas that they didn't come up with in the first place (for example, taking credit for a book I didn't write or a quote I didn't originally say). In this case, it's the movie creators' words/ideas, not the pirates ideas.

    5. Re:Copying != Stealing by green1 · · Score: 1

      Except that the method of getting caught was because they accidentally were giving attribution...
      getting caught != attribution but attribution == getting caught

  20. Re:subtiles by JustOK · · Score: 1

    thought it said subtitties

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  21. Amazing by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    People still use DivX?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Amazing by marsu_k · · Score: 1

      The site was founded in 2003. At the time, it (and XviD) was quite popular. I suppose it would be something like MKVFinland.org now, but as people are already used to the name, why bother.

  22. How is this stealing even in the loosest sense? by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

    Aren't the subtitles openly available to anyone?

  23. Finnish perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A few comments from someone who lives in Finland.

    First, Netflix reacted by posting a note saying it was sorry for the trouble (the exact wording changed a time or two). It has also removed those programs where the DivX Finland subtitles were used. Or said that they will do so, I am not a subscriber, so I am not able to check.

    The representative of DivX Finland is just feeling amused, although he did say "well they could've asked for permission..." (this from TFA) - there is no outrage there.

    Apparently Netflix buys their subtitles from Broadcast Text International, who in turn buys them from a multitude of sources, including a number of freelancers. Probably one of those sub-contractors just got them from the easiest location.

    According to a blog post (in Finnish) from the website av-kaantajat.fi (video subtitler's site), Netflix is getting their subtitles with super-tight schedules and expecting to get 1,5h worth of subtitled programs per day, whereas to do this properly it would usually take a week.
    From the same blog post, in an interview with the Netflix subtitling chief Neil Hunt, he said outright that he's not interested in quality. So apparently the subtitling for them is just a feature checkbox that needs to be ticked off, with minimum cost and without other considerations.

    Now for some background. At the same time as this has happend, the major Finnish TV media house MTV3 has recently in September outsourced all of it subtitling and translations to the same Broadcast Text International. MTV3 used to employ more than a hundred translators in-house. The difference is that BTI is offering to pay freelance translators to what amounts to less than a third of the income from a monthly salary.

    The translators have been taking quality seriously, and now with these changes the quality is expected to go down a lot. While this saves money for the media companies, there is an argument that there are subtle effects on the population. For example, many Finnish children and youths start to learn to read from subtitles, and some also start to learn the English language from English programs with Finnish subtitles. Another point was that poor subtitling may make the whole movie worse, without the viewer realising that the source of poor dialogue is not in the movie itself, but just in the translations for the subtitles.

    Netflix's approach to "quantity over quality" is just another move in the same direction, and as such, worrisome. It's also not a surprise that when paid very little and expected to deliver a lot, someone would resort to the easiest approach. Also, given Netflix's attitude, I'm not surprised if they don't have any quality control of their own for the subtitles which is why something like this would pass through.

    1. Re:Finnish perspective by Wizzu · · Score: 3, Informative

      The above was written by me. Ah, didn't notice I was logged out, didn't mean to post anonymously. Not that it matters.

    2. Re:Finnish perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One week for 1.5h hours of subtitles? Enderman (I don't know if it's a simple guy or a group) makes awesome quality subtitles for a lot of series a couple of hours after they've been aired.

    3. Re:Finnish perspective by sribe · · Score: 3

      One week for 1.5h hours of subtitles?

      If you were fluent in multiple languages and had ever tried to translate literature, you'd know that the process is surprisingly slow if you do a good job. Word-for-word is much quicker, but trying to capture, as much as possible, nuances of connotation and tone is hard work. I've only done it for the printed word, not audio, so I don't have any direct numbers, but a week for 1.5 hours does not sound out of line.

    4. Re:Finnish perspective by QuasiSteve · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have had the pleasure of doing foreign (Dutch) captioning/subtitles for an English movie - and a week for 1.5 hours is quite reasonable.

      As you mention, the problem is not so much in just word-for-word translation (although that can be challenging as well - not all words translate well. A favorite of mine is 'siblings'. There's no such word in Dutch. We just say 'brothers and sisters'.

      But now that sentence is a lot longer. Does it still fit the area available for captioning? If it doesn't, does it need to be re-timed to fit the video? Do we start it a fraction of a second sooner? Make a choice to cut some words elsewhere?

      Titles are also challenging. The WHO (World Health Organization), for example, is not referenced as the WHO in Dutch. It's WGO. Nobody is going to tell you that, though - you're going to have to do the research and find out if the local language does indeed have a localized term.. and whether that is official or just in common use.

      Jokes involving wordplay are also a good one. Good luck translating that. Odds are you'll just have to drop the joke because the language being translated to has no similar wordplay to fit the situation and trying to shoehorn it in will just make the reader think the subtitle was awkward.

      Proper subtitling is hard. As much as I think it's great that the community add subtitles for 'pirated' movies where no official subtitle is available, the quality is often appalling. Not that official subtitles are always perfect, but when you get somebody subtitling who only barely understands English in the first place and fails to grasp context entirely, you get things like Data from Star Trek happily being translated to 'gegevens'.. until the translator realizes it's a proper name and then switches to Data, but leaving the earlier mistakes in place.

    5. Re:Finnish perspective by marsu_k · · Score: 1

      WRT divxfinland.org, when I've tried their subtitles, if found the quality to be quite on par with the professional subtitles found in TV / movies. Yes, there are some amateurish mistakes every now and then - I don't bother to correct them as they can be rather hilarious, but it's not like the official ones don't suffer from those (there are some famous examples, like "the odds are against us" becomes "Oddit ovat meitä vastaan" - that is, the people/species called Odds are against us. Mind you, this was Star Trek, so it's not entirely unreasonable to assume some odd-looking aliens being called Odds, but still). I've also found the community can be very creative with word plays as well - obviously they're never translated word-to-word, but sometimes very funnily referencing local events/places/people.

      But one case where I've found the community subs to exceed the commercial ones consistently are dates and numbers. And this is an issue I've never really understood, one would think this is such a fundamental part of any language that a professional translater would never get these wrong. But it's far too common to see something like 13 being 15, or Tuesday being Wednesday, or something similar. Boggles the mind. The amateurs do a far better job in this regard.

    6. Re:Finnish perspective by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      Small countries with complex legacy languages like Finland should have all Soumi subtitles in all media be subsidized by the Finnish government. The Finnish government should also set up a bureau that creates public domain software that translates Soumi into English and the other important world languages. And English into Soumi in real time. And the subtitles should be available for Finnish television that are both Soumi and English. And most importantly, the Soumi subtitles should *exactly* match the spoken Soumi. Naturally all these subtitles should be able to be turned off by the individual viewer. Soumi is a special and nearly unique language that is at the risk of disappearing within a hundred years or so if the Finnish people all wake up one day in the future and decide that they're going to just speak English from then on.
            I'm currently trying to learn French after completing two years of University French. I'm done lots of grammar drills that college language classes focus on. Now I'm trying to learn to comprehend the spoken language by watching DVDs of Hollywood movies with the audio set to French and the subtitles also set to French. However, I'm going nucking futs because none of the French language audio in any Hollywood movie matchs the French language subtitles. I suspect that the audio is dubbed by people in Quebec and the subtitles are done by a different group of people in Los Angeles because the audio French doesn't have quite the same accent as the French language spoken in all the original version French movies that I've seen. My french isn't good enough to tell regional accents or the difference between spoken Quebecois and Parisianne mannier of speaking. Nevertheless, DVD subtitles are becoming the primary tool for language spoken-comprehension learning. Just as on-line downloading of graphics-based videos will inevitably supercede physical attendence in college classrooms for higher education, so will DVD audio+subtitle immersion will supercede traditional foreign language learning. But it can only work when there is *exact* correspondence between the spoken language of the actors in the movie and the subtitles. At least on the level that most people are at after completing one/two years of college-level instruction in a foreign language.
            People learning English as a foreign language are lucky that the English language subtitles on region one (North America) DVDs (which are usually presented as closed-caption for deaf audience viewers) almost always exactly match the spoken dialog of the movie.

    7. Re:Finnish perspective by Upphew · · Score: 1

      This gave me a chuckle or two: http://www.juhaterho.fi/proverbiaalinen/pora/

    8. Re:Finnish perspective by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      France does extensive domestic dubbing, Quebec probably dubs a lot too, what happens is there are often both Quebecois and French dubbings so you probably need to import DVD from France or Europe if you want "proper" French dubbing. Subtitles will make you go nuts no matter what, because they have to be trimmed a lot to fit on the screen, words and phrases are too long and English suffers much less from this. You always end up with shorter and simpler words or tournures, and parts of dialog even dumped.

      (I hope you have mail notification or something, this story is very interesting but three day old..)

  24. Re:subtiles by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a subtle error.

  25. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

    Wait until the DCMA take down from netflix comes...

  26. Oh well by Vince6791 · · Score: 1

    Corporations always take shortcuts just to save a few bucks from polluting the earth instead of cleaning up after themselves to being lazy to hire extra people to add subtitles to their streaming movies. Movies in Netflix do come and go do to licensing but I always see the same movies coming back and same with tv shows. Netflix has the balls to allow the service on linux devices like Roku or mobile OS's like Chrome OS which is running the linux kernel, but yet they piss on the Linux desktop. But i have to admit that the netflix streaming is a lot better than broadcast tv and cable(unless your a sports and news fan), even hulu and crackle are still better than regular tv.

  27. Simple solution by fufufang · · Score: 1

    I guess we just have to "pirate" some stuff back.

  28. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by fredprado · · Score: 1

    He is saying they wouldn't be able to charge in the absence of such subtitles... Subtitles are required to sell movies in places that do not have English as their main language.

  29. Re:subtiles by obarel · · Score: 1

    They wouldn't have stolen the subtiles if the pirates kept them encryped.

  30. Needed: One Or More Starving Lawyers by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    This might be a heaven-sent opportunity to force the copyright Nazis into court on the OTHER side. The RIAA is already involved in a lawsuit intended to make sharing one's Netflix password illegal. It seems to me that dragging Netflix into court for this instance of piracy might also force the RIAA or one of its sister groups into court, and get them involved in a nice, bloody dust-up with people who can fight back.

    If nothing else, it should create some case law in Finland that might apply more widely in Europe and serve to limit the depredations of these creeps.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  31. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by fafaforza · · Score: 1

    You don't have to charge extra for the subtitles to benefit from them financially. For example, if someone sees that an English movie is available with subtitles in their language, they would be more likely to spend the money than if those subtitles weren't available. Careful calling people idiots.

  32. Re:Fair enough... by icebraining · · Score: 2

    Millions of people copy stuff and don't end up in jail or pay fines. You have to be sued for that, and nobody sued Netflix.

  33. Re:Subtitles for the deaf by icebraining · · Score: 1

    No, the translators own copyright over the subtitles too; Netflix would need a license from them as well.

  34. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by icebraining · · Score: 1

    The DMCA still doesn't apply in Finland.

  35. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

    Because the DMCA has force in Finland, does it?

  36. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

    You obvious haven't been paying attention to the attempts to make US law apply to every one everywhere in the world

  37. Re:Arrrrgg...... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Hang them from the yardarm by their lutefisks.

    s/lutefisks/lipeäkalaa
    It was in Finland, not Norway...
    Whatever you call it, lipeäkala or lutefisk is merely nasty: fish turned into mucus. No worse than mämmi, and utterly nowhere nearly as disgusting as surströmming (a win for Sweden over both Norway and Finland)...

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  38. Not Stealing. Not infringement. by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

    The copyright on a non-protected derivative work automatically reverts to the original copyright holder. In this case, if I transcribe the dialogue to a movie, the dialogue still clearly belongs to whoever owns the copyright on the movie. If they license Netflix to use the dialogue as subtitles, then Netflix are within their rights to take it from transcriptions done without license.

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    1. Re:Not Stealing. Not infringement. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      The copyright on a non-protected derivative work automatically reverts to the original copyright holder. In this case, if I transcribe the dialogue to a movie, the dialogue still clearly belongs to whoever owns the copyright on the movie. If they license Netflix to use the dialogue as subtitles, then Netflix are within their rights to take it from transcriptions done without license.

      Seriously? You sure about that?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:Not Stealing. Not infringement. by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Translation is not the same as transcription.

      Try again.

  39. Wrong License Period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The GPL covers software, modifications, and redistributions. It is not appropriate to use in this case. The arguement is therefore moot.

    If you want to argue about a license which could cover artistic content, consider the Creative Commons (CC).

    http://creativecommons.org/

    IANAL

    1. Re:Wrong License Period by game+kid · · Score: 1
      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  40. Re:subtiles by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    I guess a "subtitle" error would have been too forced?

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  41. Finns actually stole from Finns, sold to Netflix by GrapefruitLemonade · · Score: 1

    To be fair, Netflix didn't steal the subtitles - a professional Finnish translator did, before selling them to Netflix as their own work.

  42. Re:Small Market by Radak · · Score: 3, Informative

    Finnish is not a Scandinavian language.

  43. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by Jmc23 · · Score: 2
    You can't steal something that is given out freely, nor are they charging anything extra for this.

    That's like saying companies are scum for making money off of linux.

    Next time, read less comments and put more energy into comprehending those comments.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  44. Re:Arrrrgg...... by ccguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hang them from the yardarm by their lutefisks.

    Well, if I was netflix I would just say that the the credits were left there *intentionally*, i.e. they didn't want to remove the author's signature.

    But the summary says this: "How were they caught? NetFlix failed to remove references to the pirate site in the subtitles", i.e. the clever thing to do but have been to just remove the credits and be done it with. What would we be saying if this was code instead?

    Also, did they just take a transcript or a translation? Not the same thing.

  45. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by fredprado · · Score: 2

    You can't steal ideas, period, but when you start to preach absurd ideas like "intellectual property" you end becoming the hypocrite, as proven here.

    And I suggest you follow your own advice and try to put aside enough of your own stupidity to at least try to comprehend what you are reading. Not everything which is given freely is given freely unconditionally.

  46. Re:Finns actually stole from Finns, sold to Netfli by hduff · · Score: 1

    To be fair, Netflix didn't steal the subtitles - a professional Finnish translator did, before selling them to Netflix as their own work.

    Those datstardly Finns!

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  47. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
    Never claimed they aren't profiting, it's a non-issue. You don't have to pay anything for something that people give away freely. Nor is there anything wrong with profiting off free things, e.g. linux.

    It's just an inflammatory piece of crap story. Netflix isn't in the content generation business so it isn't ironic that they're using 'pirated' (in reality non-pirated) stuff. Nothing was stolen. Then they say it's amazing they're too stupid to remove references to the site.

    So what we have is a company using something freely available, leaving reference to where it comes from, not charging extra for it, and enhancing service to their end users (if you've never been to another country, subtitles aren't a big reason to not watch an english blockbuster). So, why are they scum?

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  48. Is anyone surprised? by Seumas · · Score: 1

    It's not like Netflix is known for attention to detail. Most of their television series are completely screwed up, to the viewer's great frustration. If they can't even be bothered to make sure the episodes of a show are in the right order, I sure don't expect them to bother to read through the subtitles that they're lifting from questionable sources.

  49. Alternate title: Pirates add subtitles first! by Jorgensen · · Score: 1

    Interesting... This means that the pirates had added subtitles BEFORE Netflix did? Now that's impressive! (and good customer service too!)

  50. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by Jmc23 · · Score: 2
    Except that Netflix isn't saying anything about "intellectual property", they are not a content generator.

    You're right about the last part, not everything given away freely is given unconditionally. If you actually read the website, the only thing they had to do to comply with their conditions was to NOT remove the website name, which is exactly what they did.

    I do take my own advice, now you should try it. I know it's anathema to /. culture to actually read what you're talking about, but maybe you should try it some time.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  51. Korean dramas, too by saihung · · Score: 1

    As far as I can tell, the subtitles that Netflix uses for all of its Korean dramas, and for some of its anime, are also community-sourced. The twitter hashtags and IRC channel names subbed over the closing credits are kind of a give-away. I don't think this is stealing, I think it's awesome - I couldn't watch that stuff without the subtitles, and neither Netflix nor the original producers of most of that content have the time, money, or ability to do the job.

  52. Re:From someone who has read slashdots comment bef by fredprado · · Score: 1

    Apparently you can't read. Go there and read again until you can fully understand it. It may take a few tries, but if you try hard enough you will get there.

  53. Oh, cry me a river by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    Go netflix. I have no problem with legitimate rights holders stealing from thieves. Spend your time working on something you have a legitimate right to (like your own, original creative works).

    But, you say, translating is an original work - I won't even argue with that - copyright law is pretty clear that translations *are* a creative work that can be copyrighted; but since they were pirating the movies to begin with, I see no reason they should be granted any copyright on the translated subtitles.

  54. No by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Netflix hasn't said that - nor are they likely to.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  55. haha... by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

    ...the subtitles also explicitly prohibit the use of same for commercial purposes! Double whammy!

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:haha... by krray · · Score: 1

      obligatory Nelson Muntz finger pointing, "haha"

  56. Re:Fair enough... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    ...kind of like what commercial closed captions have.

    "These captions are courtesy of Turner Broadcasting".

    Some Netflix users might even be grateful to the Scandinavian "pirates" in question.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  57. NetFlix shame on you! by raynet · · Score: 1

    The really sad thing about this is than when a big corporation distributes illegal copies and is caught, it just says "sorry, our mistake, we'll remove the problematic content", but when a person shares copies of some MP3s, it is time to go to court and get hefty fines.

    --
    - Raynet --> .
  58. Re:subtiles by BluBrick · · Score: 2

    Perhaps the joke was just too subtile.

    --
    Ahh - My eye!
    The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  59. You can see this on "The Cape" by lightversusdark · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just watched "The Cape" on NetFlix with English subtitles on and at the end of each episode the URL of the subbing group comes up!

    --
    "There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
  60. Don't be an idiot by Snaller · · Score: 2

    This is not Netflix policy, then have thousands of employes in many countries, and to get stuff subtitles they have hired many different companies. Presumably one of those companies had an idiot working for them, who did this. And most likely that person is now fired.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  61. Re:Small Market by Radak · · Score: 1

    Only if Finland is part of Scandinavia, which it isn't. See here and here.

    Yes, you can call me pedantic if you wish, but I am proud of Finland not being Scandinavia. :-)

  62. Princess Bride by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Netflix is trying to kidnap what the pirates have rightfully stolen.

  63. just subtitles, right? by alienzed · · Score: 1

    but they aren't using the videos, just the subtitles. I don't think 'translating' counts as stealing. I also don't think anyone is buying the movies for the subtitles, they buy the movies for the movies.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    1. Re:just subtitles, right? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I don't think 'translating' counts as stealing.

      "Stealing" is not the right word. A translation is covered by copyright, and can be subject to a claim of copyright separate from the original work; reproducing and distribution of the translation, without permission of BOTH the author / copyright holder of the original work and of the translator / copyright holder of the translation work, would be copyright infringement, leading to the possibility of a cause of action, resulting in a lawsuit and/or criminal charges, in certain circumstances.

  64. Better link for article by hydrofix · · Score: 1

    Here's a story TorrentFreak run on this (in English)

  65. Heh... by EGSonikku · · Score: 1

    As a side note, I was watching Star Trek III on Netflix last night and noticed they had forgotten to add the subtitles for the Klingon dialog.

    I was showing it (and Trek II) to my sister who hadn't seen them. Thankfully I'm enough of a nerd I was able to translate from memory.

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
  66. Re:subtiles by sarysa · · Score: 1

    Forget subtiles -- the capital F is driving me nuts.

    --
    Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
  67. We really need a different word by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    "Stealing" is taking without permission.

    "Forging" is duplicating without permission.

    "XYZ" is copying without permission.

    AFAIK, XYZ is a new type of action (since the age of computing) that the English language does not yet have a verb for. It would be good to have a proper word to reduce confusion and misinformation.

    Any good suggestions?

    1. Re:We really need a different word by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      That's an open question to everyone, by the way.

    2. Re:We really need a different word by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Unendorsed sharing?

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    3. Re:We really need a different word by v1 · · Score: 1

      "Forging" is duplicating without permission.

      "Forging" is where you are trying to pass off a copy as an original. To sell it as "authentic" for an inflated price, or to get past a security check, etc.

      "Counterfeiting" would be closer, it's not frequently used to describe forged credentials, but still applies to selling a copy as an original.

      "Knockoff" probably comes closest here. Where you're copying the design reasonably closely, probably violating trademark and patent, but where there is not deception as to it being a copy, and often sold for less. (or in the case of piracy, often for free)

      The problem here is "knockoff" implies a lower quality product, that you still have to pay something for. Software piracy creates a (typically) identical quality product (without some benefits like updates and support) and sometimes at zero cost. So even that word isn't sufficient to describe it.

      I think part of the problem in terminology here is there aren't different words to differentiate between someone giving a copy away and someone selling it for profit. I think the two should be handled very differently. In the end, there are two basic differences from the author's point of view if you compare a freecopy and a paycopy:

      1) the paycopy is trying to make money off the copy. the freecopy may also be making money off the process (through banner hits, or even bundling malware) but may be doing it for free. people participating in torrent swarms are freecopying. The difference is one is doing it to make money and the other is not. For comparison purposes you can ignore the small minority that are making any real money off freecopies. Due to the free nature of the act, the people participating and the number of freecopies made does not have anywhere near a 1:1 relation to the number of "lost sales" for the author. The freecopiers will be a mix of people that would have bought authentic if the freecopy wasn't available, people that are getting a freecopy to try (that either don't like it, like it and buy authentic, or like it and neglect to buy it), and people that want the idea and would pay for it if they had to but freecopy instead because it's available. The "creative industry" publicly denies the existence of any but the last group, because that will produce the appearance of greatest harm to them.

      2) the availability of freecopies lowers the value of the authentic product by lowering demand, causing a drop in sales, a lower price point to maintain sales, or a combination of the two. People will argue that "piracy isn't theft because it doesn't deny the owner of property" which is true, but it does have a similar effect. When you are "selling an idea", you aren't making money off the idea itself, and it costs very little for you to copy. You invest a large amount of money in coming up with the idea, and then try to sell copies of the idea to as many people as possible for as much as possible, to recoup your investment and turn a profit. Your copying the idea to sell costs a lot less than your asking price. So when piracy lowers your price point or number of sales, it does have a real cost, it's just not a direct cost, and is very difficult to firmly quantify.

      I've seen the issue of "why do people copy?" and "how much does piracy really end up costing the authors?", but I have yet to see anyone be able to arrive at any confident numbers. The "creative industry" has paid for many studies in these areas, which always seem to arrive at numbers which everyone that looks at them considers unreasonable.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  68. We already have a word for copying someone else's by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    It's called "Plagiarism", to use another's production without crediting the source.

    Like with so much in life, just because we have computers doesn't mean unethical behavior is a new thing in the world.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  69. Re:Arrrrgg...... by pantaril · · Score: 2

    Commenting to undo accidental negative moderation, your post is actualy quite insightful.

    I don't realy see any problem here. The subtitle community is creating the subtitles for the pirate versions of the movies in the first place and they are making them available for free on the internet.. What's wrong with netflix taking their subtitles, leaving atribution in them and using them in their service? (Considering they checked the quality of the subtitles first. Fan-made subtitles often have lots of errors in them). Why should netflix duplicate their work and make their own subtitles? Wouldn't the human resources be better spent on some more productive activity?

  70. Re:We already have a word for copying someone else by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

    Closer, but plagiarism is to IP what forgery is to physical property. IP piracy is different in that the infringer is not seeking to present the work as their own, they are simply copying it for the benefit of others.

    This is hardly a new type of action for which we need a new word, it goes back to at least the printing press. "Stealing" has probably been the approximation for centuries ("piracy" in this context is about 100 years old IIRC), but of course if society changes its thinking on the action then the connotations of stealing are no longer accurate.

  71. It occurs elsewhere, too by tzot · · Score: 1

    This has happened on Greek television, too, 2-3 years ago (or maybe more; I'm getting old). They used amateur subtitles (quite often of better quality than the "professional" ones) on some series episode, and they forgot to remove the credits line with the site URL. AFAIR the subtitle-providing site still exists, but it doesn't provide subtitles anymore, after some legal hunting later on.

    --
    I speak England very best
  72. Re:subtiles by SB2020 · · Score: 1

    Yes, everyone appears to be oblivious to it!

  73. Re:Small Market by znark · · Score: 2

    I wouldn't think there would be a big market for movies subtitled in Finnish - even in Finland I think most people can understand other languages (like English, or French, or German or the other Scandinavian languages)

    Nearly all foreign TV shows and movies which are shown on Finnish TV channels are subtitled in Finnish – that’s the norm here. (Dubbing is normally never used here except for the content intended for kids under reading age. Also, the narrated sequences in some documentaries are sometimes re-narrated in Finnish whereas their on-screen dialogue remains subtitled. But those are pretty much the only exceptions.)

    The same practices go for actual movies seen in a movie theater, and the shows and movies released on DVDs or Blu-Rays.

    DivX Finland is mostly providing subtitles for the purposes of watching shows and movies which are not (yet) made available in Finland through official channels, or – as it might be the case with some more obscure foreign TV shows, for example – never will.

    Some individuals who are fluent in some particular foreign language – usually English in the Finnish context – take pride in watching shows or movies of that language without subtitling. Yet, the norm here – which is also reflected in the default settings of the set-top boxes and TV sets – is that subtitles for translation are always on and visible. (The local TV channels show a lot of foreign content which specifically calls for translation. It just wouldn’t fly if they tried to provide it to the Finnish-speaking audience “as is”, with no effort to translate. People expect the translations to be there.)

    Some Finnish-language shows may also have subtitles in Finnish for the benefit of the hard of hearing. But these subtitles, which are not about translation but transcription, are never seen by the normal folks as you need to fiddle with the settings of the TV to receive them. And only those who have the need will want to see them on their screen anyway. (There is also no legal requirement to provide such Finnish-on-Finnish transcription service, so the availability of such special-needs subtitles is pretty much limited to some select shows produced by YLE, the local public broadcaster.)

  74. Re:Arrrrgg...... by Upphew · · Score: 1

    Netflix isn't available for free. GPL vs. BSD difference pops to my mind.

  75. Netflix Brazil did it too by Andr+T. · · Score: 1
    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

  76. Re:Small Market by Radak · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected. I knew the language was distinct, but I had no idea that the national identity was so vehemently independent from the Swedes/Danes/Norwegians. I get the impression that it's like calling a Scotsman English.

    That's a fair comparison I think. Finnish identity is very unique. It does of course have significant influences from both Swedish/Scandinavian influences and from Russian ones, but still manages to sit between them and be itself. Finns are not generally upset if lumped in with Scandinavians, but are quick to point out the differences. But be warned: Never call a Finn a Swede. :)

    All of this of couse is irrelevant to the original post (I don't know if you were that AC or not). In response to the original post, it's correct that most Finns can at least understand English reasonably well, especially among younger people, but Finnish subtitles are still sometimes helpful for some of the nuances or for things that are quiet or have a lot of extraneous noise. I try to have both Finnish and English subtitles available for all my DVDs, and sometimes that means using the fine work of Divxfinland. At home, we usually watch with English subtitles on, but sometimes when certain friends are over, the Finnish ones are very useful.

    Suokaa minun tietämättömyydestä.

    Ei mitä, kaverini.

  77. Re:subtiles by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

    And I believe all orbits are ellipsis...

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  78. Stay On Topic by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    IP piracy is different in that the infringer is not seeking to present the work as their own

    And just what exactly do you think Netflix showing you subtitles created by someone else IS!!!!!!

    That is exactly why I raised this term.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Stay On Topic by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Right you are. I assumed the GP was talking about piracy in general. Plagiarism is an apt term for what Netflix has done here.

  79. Re:Small Market by Anssi55 · · Score: 1

    (There is also no legal requirement to provide such Finnish-on-Finnish transcription service, so the availability of such special-needs subtitles is pretty much limited to some select shows produced by YLE, the local public broadcaster.)

    Actually, there is, but it only affects YLE. They have to provide hearing-impaired subtitles to 60% of their Finnish and Swedish programming, and the required percentage grows by 10 percentage points each year until 100% of Finnish and Swedish programs need to subtitled in 2016.

    Source: Law (Valtioneuvoston asetus televisio-ohjelmiin liitettävästä ääni- ja tekstityspalvelusta)

  80. Re:Finns actually stole from Finns, sold to Netfli by GrapefruitLemonade · · Score: 1

    They're too drunk to know that they are liars and thieves.

  81. They didn't steal anything... by xkpe · · Score: 1

    they just copied them.

  82. And they probably payed for them... by xkpe · · Score: 1

    Like most companies they probably sub-hire the work to other company, which then sub-hires a translator, and that's who probably copied them. So netflix probably payed for them...