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.

21 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: 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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!
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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......
    9. 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.
    10. 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
  2. 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".

  3. 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: 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. Re:Arrrrgg...... by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    They watch Arrrr-rated movies

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  7. 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();
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.