Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Fan Subtitles On TV and Movies Are Illegal (thenextweb.com)

Posted by msmash on from the making-things-complicated dept.

A court has just ruled that making fan subtitles or translations is not protected by the law. From a report: A Dutch group called the Free Subtitles Foundation took anti-piracy group BREIN to court over "fansubbing." BREIN has previously been active in taking fan subtitles and translations offline, and the Foundation was hoping a Dutch court would come down on the side of fair use. The court didn't quite see it that way. It ruled that making subtitles without permission from the property owners amounted to copyright infringement. BREIN wasn't unsympathetic, but said it couldn't allow fansubbers to continue doing what they're doing.

137 comments

  1. Sucks, but derivative work by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That sucks, but, it's pretty clearly a derivative work...

    1. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by subanark · · Score: 2

      Um.. no. Just like you can't just re encode a movie, you can't do a sentence by sentence translation, as the original material is copied in a form.

      Automatic translation would be fine as long as they weren't transferred.

      "Gag dubs" should also be fine.

    2. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is reading a book aloud derivative work? Maybe if you are selling it as an audio book, but sharing is caring, not work!

    3. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by alexo · · Score: 2

      Is reading a book aloud derivative work? Maybe if you are selling it as an audio book, but sharing is caring, not work!

      It's "public performance", which is a no-no.
      Monopolizing culture is a profitable endeavour.

    4. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by dfn5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um.. no. Just like you can't just re encode a movie, you can't do a sentence by sentence translation, as the original material is copied in a form.

      I have been learning a foreign language over the last few years and the one thing I have concluded is that translation is an art form. One must convert the original language into a concept and then restate that concept in the target language in a natural way that makes sense to the target audience. The translation may look entirely different than the source material. And two people may translate the same material very differently. Transcription may be one thing but I would think translation would be protected.

      --
      -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    5. Re: Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are making money from it, yes, that is one reason why reading services for the blind are specifically exempted from infringement.

    6. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So what? Merely being a derivative work is not a sufficient condition to make it "illegal;" it should have been ruled to be Fair Use.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For books translations are considered to be derivative work and requires the permission from the copyright holder of the original work.

    8. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      So what? Merely being a derivative work is not a sufficient condition to make it "illegal;" it should have been ruled to be Fair Use.

      Sadly, derivative work in intellectual property (copyright) is NOT fair use...

    9. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you are not competent enough to do it properly, which means rigorously and accurately. Something that many lazy idiots prefer to disregard in favor of what they think is "better".

    10. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      For a book a translation is 100% of the content. A fan sub is a small addition to the original content.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    11. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by vux984 · · Score: 1

      A movie review that contains plat elements, stills, quotes, and even clips is a derivative work.

      It's perfectly legal, under fair use. (as a critical work)

      Being derivative has no bearing on whether or not it is fair use.

      Fan subbing, is an "accessibility" transformation, and should be a fair use work, especially if it is produced non-commericially and distributed for free, separately from the copy protected film.

    12. Re: Sucks, but derivative work by dnaumov · · Score: 2

      Yet, cover bands in most (all?) countries do not have to pay royalties.

    13. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Indeed, a translation is derivative work and this particular case it's not covered with fair use exemption. So it's an argument in favor of abolition of copyright law, since there's no benefit for society in disallowing fan translations.

    14. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Irrelevant... it is still a derivative work.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    15. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      That is like saying commentary is a derivative work. Sure, just copying a subtitle file would be derivative, but watching a movie, and writing a subtitle file from your interpretation of how best to translate it is fair use.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    16. Re: Sucks, but derivative work by lactose99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the US this fee, usually to ASCAP, is paid by the venue not the artist.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    17. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      So all translations of any book are now fair game? After all, you would interpret the book in your own way and write a completely original translation...

      Feel free to try your luck in court with that reasoning. So far, it didn't help any of the Harry Potter derivatives, who actually had more claim to originality than someone doing a translation. The keyword here is "substantial".

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    18. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      For profit and not for profit works are completely different. As well as any potential effects on the profitability of the original work.
      fair use factors:
      the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
      the nature of the copyrighted work;
      the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
      the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

      Non-profit (check)
      Amount Used (None)
      Effect on Sales (Increase in Potential Sales)

      Subtitles check off all the factors of what makes something fair use. A book translation does not.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    19. Re: Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, cover bands in most (all?) countries do not have to pay royalties.

      Often because nobody bothers to make them pay, because it isn't worth the effort or the publicity.

      But you can and will find covers with attribution to the copyright owners, because they are licensed.

    20. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      First off, your fair use criteria may not apply - we're talking Dutch law, not US law.

      Second, "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"
      The judge judged that this was about 100%. That's basically the whole discussion. Translation does not mean adding new insights or pages, it's just a transcription into a different language. And I have translated several articles myself, I know there's a fair amount of creativity involved if you want to transfer the meaning of the text, not just the words, but it is limited compared to the creation of the original text (or script). The gist of the articles I translated would have been transferred regardless of who the translator was. And given the very limited amount of text in movie subtitles the creative input is very limited indeed. Much more limited than derivative works like "Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly".

      Non-profit is debatable, the sites that publish the subtitles certainly make a nice profit off the ads.

      Effect on sales: since sales are subtitled, subtitles only apply to movies that are pirated. While you can hardly prove that people would have bought the movie just because it was translated, it's hard to prove otherwise too - and since the FSF was bringing the suit, they had to prove that this was the case. Good luck with that.

      I'm not opposed to pirating, but at the same time let's not pretend this type of reasoning will hold up in court. It certainly didn't today.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    21. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by slew · · Score: 2

      That is like saying commentary is a derivative work. Sure, just copying a subtitle file would be derivative, but watching a movie, and writing a subtitle file from your interpretation of how best to translate it is fair use.

      IANAL, but although it might be true that watching a movie and writing a essay in another language that describes the movie completely in strict time-order might be fair use, but structuring your translation as a sub-title and synchronizing the sub-tiles back to the original audio-visual work (or simply replacing the sub-titles that came with that audio-visual work) will probably make it a derivative work under the law. Legally, part of the copyright of a movie is the synchronization between the audio and the video (and/or the sub-titles and the video) and it would be pretty hard to argue that independently developed sub-tiles aren't somehow derivative of the original audio-visual synchronization of the work which is (sadly) one the the elements of a movie protected by copyright law...

    22. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by westlake · · Score: 1

      the one I have concluded that translation is an art form.

      The artful and conscientious translation will remain recognizable as a translation to those who know the original. It will still be a clearly derivative work. You can botch a translation badly and the source can still be plain to see.

    23. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by harperska · · Score: 2

      What is being distributed by the fansubbers? If it is just a file with a timecoded set of dialog lines which requires the user to have purchased the original movie from the copyright holder first, you may have a point. But very often what is distributed is the actual movie itself with the subtitles superimposed on. In which case it is piracy in that it is denying the copyright holder the original sale. And it is only minimally derivative as the majority of the creative work is in the original movie itself and any creativity on the translator's part is in fact in trying to preserve the original creative intent of the film maker in a new language. Thus the judge's ruling that the new portion of the derived work is minuscule with the vast majority of the creative work belonging to the original.

      Even if it is just the dialog lines being distributed in a separate file, one could still argue that the substantive portion of the creative work still belongs to the original considering the intent of the translation is to preserve the original creative intent as closely as possible rather than adding any new ideas to the work.

      Granted my personal philosophy is that piracy is not necessarily inherently bad, especially in situations where most of the money you pay for an album or movie goes to suits at the studio rather than the artists themselves, but to argue that this is not piracy in the first place is self-delusional.

    24. Re: Sucks, but derivative work by slew · · Score: 1

      If you are making money from it, yes, that is one reason why reading services for the blind are specifically exempted from infringement.

      That is a bit of a simplification. Reading services for the blind operate under an very narrow extension of the fair use of copyrights. Under current copyright rules, reading services for the blind must be sponsored by an authorized organization (basically a non-profit or governmental agency specializing in providing access to people with disabilities) and these services are specifically restricted to non-dramatic literary or educational works and can they only be produced in a format which is exclusively for use by people with disabilities.

      That means citizen jane can't just read the latest best seller fiction book and put it on a pod-cast under the guise of providing a reading service for the blind.

    25. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to argue your point of "Amount Used (None)". They are translating the script - recreating an existing product in a new form. How is it not transformative or deriviative? If they had not seen the copywritten work, could they create the same product?
      Where I have seen term "fansubbing" used has been in anime, where people were subtitling anime episodes and distributing them. Certainly copying the film video and audio is infringing. Adding subtitles does not make it a new piece of work.
      I envision this as the same issue when a music artist copies anothers music aritist's song: How much was copied? Again, translating a songs lyrics into spanish does not mean that you have made a new song, and as such do not need to respect the orignal copyright holder. So what how much of the content is lyrics/script? I could argue that it is 50% video, 50% audio, so script is 25% - half of the audio, as it is not sound effects/voice actors, but is still the same content.
      Take a good look at where copyright came from. One of the original sources was to stop people watching performances to recreate them and pass them off as their own.
      It might increase sales, and it might be non-profit. But it definately is recreating part of a performance, and linked to the original work.

    26. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      What is being distributed by the fansubbers? If it is just a file with a timecoded set of dialog lines which requires the user to have purchased the original movie from the copyright holder first, you may have a point. But very often what is distributed is the actual movie itself with the subtitles superimposed on.

      It depends on who you describe as the "fansubber". Is it the person who does the subs? They're only distributing a srt or whatever. Is it the person who does the video overlay? They're creating a derivative work. Is it the person who actually seeds the torrent with the overlaid video? They're clearly distributing someone else's IP.

      None of this is justification for taking down sites which only share subtitle files

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like you can't just re encode a movie, you can't do a sentence by sentence translation, as the original material is copied in a form.

      1. This was a Dutch court ruling. Fuck the Dutch.
      2. Saying that subs are "Illegal", like the headline claims, is clickbait bullshit. They said it's not protected under Dutch "Fair Use" laws. There is a very large difference between saying "Doing this is Illegal" and saying "Doing this is Illegal if the owner says you can't."
      3. See point #1.

    28. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course translation is protected.
      Why would it not?

      Hiw would you think if
      i translate your original Korean 'Harry Potter' look alike into german? ? ?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    29. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It is not fair use.
      How stupid are you? Hint: read the law. It states what fair use is and what a derived work is.
      It is clearly a derived work, your translation/subtitle would not an could not edist without the original work: it is clearly a derived work.
      Or did you work hard on a subtitle for an imaginary movie, waking up in the morning with the subtitles in your hand, realizing that in the same night, by accident, someone made the movie you accidentally happen to have the subtitles for?
      (facepalm)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    30. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sucks, but, it's pretty clearly a derivative work...

      No, it's not clear. Just the opposite.

      It's not any more a 'derivative work' than a translation of a book, which is fair use.

      Make the subtitles and publish them anyway, and kill judges, legislators, and any other government officials who pass laws and/or take actions to censor and lock away a society's own knowledge and culture from itself. That's a crime against humanity equal to any genocide from history and the response to such violations should reflect it. That's the only way to prevent your culture from being placed behind paywalls and the only way those determined to exercise control over your lives and thoughts by doing so will cease their efforts.

    31. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Under copyright law: for profit and not for profit are no difference at all.
      No idea where you got that retarded idea from.

      If I'm the author of a piece of work and hate it being transalted into Klingon or Elvish then be ready for a fight if you do translate it. Why you for funk sake think it would not matter under the law if you do so and distribute MY WORK in a translated form, is beyond me.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    32. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why don't you simply read up the law?
      Derived work and fair use are contradictions in terms.
      A work can only be one of the ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    33. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a little difference - but only in that it all goes into the mix of things to consider, and it's more likely that being for profit would make something less likely to be Fair Use, rather than being not for profit making it more likely. (Assuming a theoretical middle position)

    34. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a derived work doesn't stop something from being fair use. In fact, if it wasn't a derived work, then it definitely wouldn't be fair use - because it'd be an original work and no one would be in court in the first place.

    35. Re: Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, I would think this falls under satire as far as the law is concerned.

    36. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair use is typically considered an affirmative defense, and in the 2015 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. case held to be an expressly authorized right. A work could be a derived work that would infringe unless a person invokes this right or defense. They are by no means contradictory, they are orthogonal concepts.

    37. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh write a "translation" that bears no resemblance to the original text, and is a completely different story - like "literal videos". 'Course, then MST3K studios might sue us-they're such dicks! : )

    38. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Copyright literally means someone owns the rights to make copies. If the original material isn't being copied, then you didn't violate copyright. I'm not a lawyer, but I assume they wrote a clause in their laws to define translations as derivative works.

    39. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm the author of a piece of work and hate it being transalted into Klingon or Elvish then be ready for a fight if you do translate it. Why you for funk sake think it would not matter under the law if you do so and distribute MY WORK in a translated form, is beyond me.

      Because the whole fucking purpose of copyright was to increase the number of works available to the public, not hold ideas ransom for entire generations.

      By forbidding, the translation of a work for free, you are effectively forbidding anyone who can't understand one of the "official" work's languages from having access to it.

      You had best hope I don't find out what ever drivel you've actually published is, because just like BREIN in the summary, I will no longer respect your copyrights, and encourage their piracy at every opportunity.

      Copyright does not exist to line your pockets, or anyone else's pockets, at the expense of society. If you think otherwise, do us all a favor and quit publishing. Otherwise, the only way this is going to change is for society to say "Fuck it", and just pirate it to the point of non-profitability.

    40. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Why don't you simply read up the law?
      Derived work and fair use are contradictions in terms.
      A work can only be one of the ...

      Fair use is a _defence_ for copyright infringement, copyright infringement can only happen with derived work. By DEFINITION all fair use are derived works.

      So this begs the question: Are you are shill or a troll?, because I find it hard to believe you can be that stupid by accident.

    41. Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      By DEFINITION all fair use are derived works. By definition? You are an idiot, sorry.
      Showing a movie, that is copyrighted, without asking for permission, in a school class for 'educational purpose' ....
      IS NOT A DERIVED WORK!
      IT IS FAIR USE. (And it is not a copyright violation)

      Photocopying a part of a book, to hand it out to kids in school: is not a derived work! It is a _plain copy_ !!

      I can hardly imagine a situation where one creates a derived work first and then claim they are using it in fair use ...
      Except for the topic, you could say subtitles for the deaf are a derived work AND are fair use.

      The rest of your post is simply insulting and wrong. Perhaps reread it and follow my advice: read the law!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. Whelp, there goes Google Translate, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is this because the original content (video) is being published along with the translations? What about other translation or transcribing tools (like for the hearing impaired)?

    1. Re:Whelp, there goes Google Translate, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like, news for the hearing impaired?

    2. Re:Whelp, there goes Google Translate, eh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, this is news for the hearing impaired

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  3. Isn't that obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know any better example of "derivative work" than translations

  4. Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to the United States Constitution, the purpose of copyright is...

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

    What is the pupose of copyright in the Netherlands, and how does this ruling support that purpose?

    1. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The purpose of copyright in Netherlands is the same as in UK and Sweden:
      1. To incarcerate and punish the nationals for the sake of foreigners and their wallets.
      2. To maximize the outflow of cash from the local economy into foreign wallets.
      3. To proudly look at the American owners, let your tongue out, and wag your tail so you can be called a good puppy boy
      and patted on the head for doing actions 1. and 2.

    2. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      According to the United States Constitution, the purpose of copyright is...

      What the purpose is according to the constitution and what it is actually used for hasn't been the same thing in a long long time. Not in the Netherlands, definitely not in the USA.

    3. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon to be part of the United States of Arabia.

    4. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by wabrandsma · · Score: 1

      2. To maximize the outflow of cash from the local economy into foreign wallets.

      A good example would be: Directive 2011/77/EU on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights.
      As EDRi put it:

      In short, this is a piece of European legislation which is almost impressively bad. It achieves the worst of all available outcomes, disadvantaging young performers, placing a barrier between citizens and their culture and producing a net loss of money from the EU to the US.

    5. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Sadly, what I think most (good) people don't realize about Copyright's intended purpose
      was to establish a clear and orderly progression of (any) work into the public domain. That is, it
      "rewards" the author for a limited period of time from a work's creation an exclusive right to profit
      for said work, if the author so desires. After that time, the monopoly "license" is revoked and the
      work becomes part of the public (culture).

    6. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Forget all that crap. It's not like the constitution means anything anyway, every article of the bill of rights has been shit upon by our government anyway. In "170 UN member states plus the Holy See and Niue", copyright is defined by the Berne convention. And "among the rights that must be recognized as exclusive rights of authorization" is "the right to translate". So in short, no, you explicitly have no legal right to distribute translations.

      With that said, going after sites that only publish subs is a total dick move, and there's no way that actually spending money on that is in the public interest.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why are slashdotters so obsessed with getting everything for free? Get a job and start paying your way instead of freeloading and defending freeloaders.

    8. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually in Europe we don't have 'copyrights'.
      We have 'moral rights', and the base of this is a performer or author never 'loses' or transfers his 'rights' ... so what exactly is your point?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moral rights are actually part of copyright.
      Indeed you can not sign away your moral rights on a copyrighted work.

    10. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most European countries use a term similar to Authors' rights, instead of 'copyright'.

      It's mostly about moral rights of the author, not the ability to make money off creative works.

    11. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the United States Constitution, the purpose of copyright is...

      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

      What is the pupose of copyright in the Netherlands, and how does this ruling support that purpose?

      Copyright in many, many industries is predominantly employed to root out access to content that has passed its prime of monetization while still stealing attention from newer productions with higher profit margins.

      Fan subtitles take control from the copyright wielders over products they want to see fade in favor of newer productions. Newer productions imply progress of Science and, well, mostly useless sort-of Arts.

      It's the same reason that if you have a once-in-a-century race horse, you retire from racing when you use the horse for breeding. Not because there would be an inherent conflict: you'd ruin your sperm prices if people get to have the direct comparison between sire and offspring. Nobody wants to pay a lot of money for second place.

    12. Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by MrMr · · Score: 1

      ... 2. And not just the outflow from the local economy: http://www.lowtax.net/informat... ...

  5. Won't Be Popular, But Here's The Plaintiff's View by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSYk8ofhYFY

  6. Well too bad for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    because such a stupid ruling will never be enforceable. Meanwhile anyone who is a liberal and a globalists disagrees with anyone attempting to stonewall the freedom of communication which sees different people coming together through mediums such as entertainment, where political and social aspects implicated by fan-subbing vastly outweigh BREIN's opinions and the opinions of the copyright cartel behind them using this ruling as a smokescreen precedent to censor and attack freedom of expression down the line.

    1. Re:Well too bad for them by Daemonik · · Score: 0

      Just because you're a liberal or even a globalist doesn't mean you don't care about copyrights and having your work taken without pay or attribute. Lots of artists are liberals and don't appreciate being taken advantage of.

    2. Re:Well too bad for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how your statement has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
      I also see that you think copyright is an absolute right that should stomp over consumer rights, and that balance should not exist.
      Because balance doesn't mean that everyone is happy, balance means that both creators and consumers have to give up on some things
      to have a mutual respect and understanding.
      In the past 2 decades, the consumer rights on the Internet have gone down the drain, while copyright is being treated like an infallible bible.
      Sorry, but copyright isn't infallible, it isn't absolute, and it doesn't exist for the sole purpose of making creators happy.

    3. Re: Well too bad for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tough titties. As a deaf woman, I don't appreciate twats who care so little about disabled fans as to not cater to us. Besides, it's not like the availability of subtitle files - essentially merely transcripts - makes the original work less appealing or even has an appeal except in conjunction with the original work. It may technically be copyright infringement, but common sense says this doesn't harm and almost certainly helps the original authors, an argument that's on far less shaky ground than when similar arguments are made about outright copying. So once again, tough titties.

    4. Re: Well too bad for them by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      And not only fans with a hearing loss, but multinational fans as well. Any company who cracks down on fan subs must not want viewers outside their country/language of origin.

    5. Re: Well too bad for them by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If they wanted to support their fans they would make these dubs available (for money) from them, preferably via mail order over the internet to ensure maximum availability.

  7. Question is profit by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they are selling the movie without having paid for it, that's definitely copyright violation. But the fan subtitling people do not have to do that.

    If you do it yourself and do not sell anything, that's not copyright theft.

    If you buy the right to make and sell copies of the movie, then you are legally selling the item.

    If someone else pays you for your subtitles but you only sell them a timed set of subtitles without the movie, then you are not breaking the law. If they already have (or get) the right to display/sell the movie and they combine your time subtitles, then no one is breaking the law.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Question is profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's extra funny is that there is a willing market that isn't being served officially, just by fansubbers. If I can't pay them, they won't be getting my money one way or the other. I know people who go out of their way to IMPORT foreign content to pay, despite having to find fansubs to get the most out of it. But instead of putting their resources into serving large, untapped markets, they focus on people who would never pay them in the first place. It really puts things into perspective.

    2. Re:Question is profit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, that timed set of subtitles is a translation of the verbal audio, and as such a derivative work... you need permission from the copyright holder for that unless fair use can be determined to apply. If you are making money for it, then it cannot possibly be fair use.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    3. Re:Question is profit by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. It's not about money. Fair use covers things like citations and parodies, even if you make money on them.

    4. Re:Question is profit by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      But a translation is exactly the kind of work that is supposed to count as derivative while NOT being covered by fair use.

    5. Re:Question is profit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In Germany, in the long chain of small 'copyright' infringements, everyone in that chain, copier of the movie, subtitle maker, torrent distributor, translator etc. can be sued for the full damage.
      I doubt it is different in your country!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Question is profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the Netherlands. Here, it is the distribution of a work you do not have the rights to that is outlawed in publisher/author protection laws.

  8. Copyright is for the profit of the creator by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Copyright should not preclude fansubs or fandubs until there is content in that language for sale/rent to the public. If you won't serve a market, there is no reasonable expectation for financial benefit and thus fair use precludes you from shutting out fansubs and the like.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Copyright is for the profit of the creator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It should also serve as a reminder that translations in different languages can have extremely different forms from the original due to lingual barriers,
      whereby fansubs can sometimes even more accurately translate (reconstruct for local audiences) the meanings and wordplay for non-native understanding,
      than licensed subs which sometimes are also censored or edited for sociopolitical reasons.
      So by any and all means, attempting to play copyright police with fansubbing can be dangerous or destructive depending on the nature of the work.

    2. Re:Copyright is for the profit of the creator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the market isn't being served *right now* doesn't mean it won't be in the future. We're still seeing releases of anime from 10 or 20 years ago. Manga from even before then. Decades old video games have been receiving HD or engine updates and being re-released for years now - sometimes they don't even bother with that; Call to Power 2 just got a straight-up rerelease on Steam, 17 years later!

    3. Re:Copyright is for the profit of the creator by Aereus · · Score: 1

      The wrinkle is that this is rarely abided by. Even in the case of comics (manga) that are seeing a dual release in Japanese and English by the publisher, you have groups stealing advance copies of the magazine and putting out hastily prepared translations days before the street date of said magazine. Gotta have that ad revenue, after all. In the past you could make a case for it, as licenses took 1-2+ years to make it overseas, if ever.

      It gets really murky though, when you factor in geoblocking. Especially with the case of English, while primary English markets may be served (US/Canada/UK etc), often times they will argue its for people who can speak English but are in countries where the content is blocked.

      And yes, the issue isn't so much the fansubs, as the fact 99.9% of the time they aren't just sharing a script, but the entire content.

  9. Copyright should have an availablity requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the rights-holder is unwilling to provide copies (or in this case translations) then they should not be able to prevent others from doing so. This is currently a huge problem with out-of-print books as well.

  10. Unusual way to be offended by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So, the there is a copyright violation because people are providing a service (subtitles) for movies/shows that were released without subtitles, either in other languages or in any languages because the studios were too damn cheap to provide them?

    So, if I see a fire break out and I put it out on my own, am I infringing on the work of the firefighter that either were not called or had not yet arrived?

    Sure, you are producing a textual version of the movie, but it would be utilized in conjunction with the movie/show. It's not like someone is going to read subtitles on a movie they have not seen and feel, "Gosh! Now I don't have to see the movie at all! I can't believe Bruce Willis was actually a ghost. Didn't see that one coming.... (Sorry for the spoiler, you should have watched it by now.)

    So are they actually upset because it is now becoming public how cheap and unsupportive the studio executives are to the hearing impaired?

    1. Re:Unusual way to be offended by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't believe you would spoil Die Hard like that. Have you no pity, no compassion, no feeling for your fellow man/woman/small furry creature from Alpha Centauri?

    2. Re:Unusual way to be offended by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 2

      Well that was the reason his wife and kids moved to Los Angeles, after all. After all, he wasn't a workaholic and that caused his wife to leave him, he was dead!

    3. Re:Unusual way to be offended by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      God that would be horrifying... Just imagining him as a poltergeist killing all those people. yip......e......kai.........yaaaaaaay

  11. Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by SirSlud · · Score: 2

    Me not selling something today doesn't mean I won't want to sell it tomorrow. The issue with out of print books should be addressed by having reasonable copyright term limits.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  12. Are they subtitling, or distributing the movie? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

    Most fansubs I have seen are rips and re-encodes of the video with the subtitles baked into the video. That is clearly a derived work and subject to copyright law. If they just distributed an .srt file then they might not have the problem. There's technical issues with rendering the .srt from within an Amazon or Netflix player, or on your streaming media box, but that could be dealt with.

    1. Re:Are they subtitling, or distributing the movie? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      This. Fansubs in my experience are always hard subs. they are always redistributing the original content. Otherwise they are just call subs, and I presume most of the subs floating around are fan written (but they are not called fansubs outside of anime.).

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Are they subtitling, or distributing the movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what planet you're living on, but in my experience they're almost never hard subs.
      Most subtitles are produced as a subtitle script with respect to a reference raw video. This script is what the QA guys and typesetters work on and it's a text file.
      Sometimes this is the only thing the fansub group releases itself, other times the group has a member who usually re-encodes the reference video to cut the file size and who adds the subs as soft subs. If the fansub group doesn't release the video, there's usually some external person or group who/which takes the script and adds it to the video.
      In the end, what reaches the consumer is almost always a chaptered video with soft subs. (You can tell because you can turn off the subs. That wouldn't be possible if they were hard subs.) Sometimes you only get the subs as a text file, but that doesn't really matter, because in today's world getting the reference raw or a re-encode of the reference is usually trivial.

    3. Re:Are they subtitling, or distributing the movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh, no. Fansub communities never trade video files. They run huge public sub databases that are intended to be used by media players and HTPC like Kodi to add subtitles to unsubbed content. They are simply metadata engines like theTVDB. Occasionally, sometimes, those fansubs might find their way to being hardcoded on videos you downloaded (you filthy pirate). But in that case the uploader has stolen the video (from the original source) AND the subtitles (from the fansub database).

  13. No it isn't. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Copyright is for the profit of the creator

    No, copyright is for promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts. Enabling the creator to profit is only a means to that end.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:No it isn't. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      That's in the US (in theory). This is the Netherlands. I'm not sure what the Dutch goverment has stated as the purpose of copyright.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:No it isn't. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      No, copyright is for promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts.

      Copyright is a form of social engineering. Once you get away from protecting life, liberty, and [real] property, everything goes to hell where the government is concerned.

      There are winners and there are losers. Almost always, due to concentrated benefits and diffuse costs the winners are small interests and the losers are the rest of the People. This subbing case is a clear example of that.

      But until those People mature and realize that they can't get something for nothing, this kind of nonsense is guaranteed to continue. Even if they realize the problem in this case, they are unlikely to generalize the principle to broader contexts. It's special-pleading turtles all the way down.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:No it isn't. by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      OK, but even in the US, how do they achieve the lofty, high minded goal of promoting science and arts? By creating a profit motive for the creator to share with the world (i.e. copyright). So you can be pedantic, but my original statement still holds true to the key intent of copyright, which is to enrich creators and distribute their work to the people to the greater benefit of both sides. The net result is BOTH to promote science etc. AND profit the creator.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  14. Sound like the Netherlands needs Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it be against the law in the Netherlands to hire a translator to watch a movie with you and tell you what the people are saying? If I'm deaf, is it illegal for a friend to tell me what the people on screen are saying? What about one of the many smart phone apps that can listen to something and translate it for you? Are you violating copyright in the Netherlands if you use one of those apps while watching a movie? What about Google Translate? If I type in a line from a movie because I want to know how to say it in another language, is Google now facilitating copyright infringement?

  15. no different than translation of books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Translation of books have long been covered under copyright as derivative works. Many authors knowing that their work was to be translated might have opinions on who and how the work is translated as the translator could very easily change the intended meaning of the work. Subtitles are no different here.

    1. Re:no different than translation of books by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      > as the translator could very easily change the intended meaning of the work.

      If the translator changed the meaning it would probably fall under fair use.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:no different than translation of books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Books are different, because with a book, the information conveyed by the text is essentially the entire creative component of the book, thus a translation of that book would constitute a reproduction of pretty much the entirety of the copyrighted material. For a movie, a time-stamped text record of the on-screen dialog, minus any attribution to characters, stage direction, description of action, etc., is an extremely minuscule and insubstantial part of the creative work as a whole. If the case is question had been argued in the US, I think a pretty strong fair use claim could have been made.

    3. Re: no different than translation of books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think a movie transcript is the same as the movie?

      You should learn Braille and donate your eyes to someone who can recognize the difference.

    4. Re:no different than translation of books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation of books have long been covered under copyright as derivative works. Many authors knowing that their work was to be translated might have opinions on who and how the work is translated as the translator could very easily change the intended meaning of the work. Subtitles are no different here.

      People misquoting a book in conversation with their friends could also change the meaning of a work. Should authors be able to control this, or is the right to engage in casual conversation independent of the profits of authors? If we give authors the ability to control this, for how long do we allow them to assert such control? At what point do we differentiate between casual conversation and other forms of communication, and when does such differentiation become unethical practice of law?

      Given that most legal systems are written by legal professionals, they tend to serve the interests of legal professionals over the public, and thus violate universal and inalienable human rights (starting with the right to ethical practice of law, certainly an universal and inalienable right in any society based on the rule of law), it follows that we can expect serious problems in any legal system not subject to intense and ongoing public scrutiny, with public authority to make changes or block illegal action.

      Copyright law is no exception. In fact, it tends to have really bad legal ethics problems, as a result of the huge amount of money flowing through the entertainment industries - and this is a problem that readily crosses national boundaries.

      As no government can be legitimate if its policies significantly infringe universal and inalienable human rights, it follows that many government policies regarding copyright are in fact illegal, irregardless of the details of the specific legal system.

      This means that long-standing rules are law are not necessarily legitimate, especially in this day and age, and we must closely re-examine these to determine whether their application is in fact legitimate. Often it will not be.

      The development and release of not-for-gain subtitles are clearly reasonable - provided they are clearly indicated as being unofficial - and hence any court ruling to the contrary is an illegal government action. No legitimate government has the authority to prevent this - and legal professionals acting to the contrary (whether in government or private employ) are engaged in unethical practice of law.

  16. Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is one of the cases where spread of culture and a discussion on the ownership of language and implications behind this discussion, are more important than some self-righteous copyright prick trying to play "Masters of the Universe" because he treats copyright like ISIS treats the Quran.
    This is now something bigger than the "creators" and their wallets, and i find it sad that the Dutch judicial system was too narrow-minded (or bribed) to properly
    discuss this.

  17. Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Me not selling something today doesn't mean I won't want to sell it tomorrow.

    Fair point. You can have until next Thursday.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Kiss your lyrics sites goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely if subtitles are infringing, then lyrics sites must really be infringing (and stop calling me Shirley).

  19. Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    I believe the word is 'compulsory licensing'. If you want copyright/patent protection, you should be required to license it for a reasonable price. But, since the public doesn't give a damn, it ain't gonna happen.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. Horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe 100 years ago that was true. I suggest asking your friends at Disney if that is still true.

  21. Wasn't unsympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wasn't unsympathetic = sympathetic?

    1. Re: Wasn't unsympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not cold = hot. Not black = white. Not not =

  22. Re:Hitler will be happy. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Post is not complete without a link to a downfall spoof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  23. Former fansubber here by snarfies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in the pre-digital days, I was part of a fansubbing group called Lupin Gang Anime. These days, I capture laserdiscs of the many titles that have never been reissued on DVD or better (https://www.otakubell.com/)

    I will continue to capture these endangered titles and put them on the internet. I will continue to do my best to preserve these titles from being lost. The only way I will stop is if I am locked up. Given the choice between following the law and doing what's right, I'll chose the later.

    1. Re:Former fansubber here by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      On behalf of all the Anime fans who, like me, love the classics but can't understand more than a small handful of phrases I would like to say:

      Thank you!

    2. Re:Former fansubber here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      respect!

  24. Re:Won't Be Popular, But Here's The Plaintiff's Vi by PPH · · Score: 1

    Came to post this link. Left satisfied.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  25. So MST3K is illegal? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Or is it only because they're not mocking?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:So MST3K is illegal? by ewhac · · Score: 2

      MST3K pays a license fee for the movies they use. Indeed, a significant chunk of the money they crowdsourced for Season 11 went toward obtaining licenses.

      --
      Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
  26. Since we have not figured out how to profit.... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1

    .... from this yet, we are just going to make it illegal until we do. How UTTERLY pathetic :-D

  27. And further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this article on slashdot deemed to be illegal because rewording and summarizing the original article constitutes a derivative work of the original article

  28. The Downfall ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... of fair use.

    Youtube video (with subtitles) to follow shortly.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  29. Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by Aereus · · Score: 1

    And that's just it—the expectation from the general public has been reduced to almost zero. It used to be fansubs thrived due to taking 2+ years (if ever) for series to come out officially. Now you have people whining if there is even a one week delay in the English, as many series receive a simultaneous digital release alongside the Japanese broadcast.

    Viz has a number of manga that are simultaneously published in English and Japanese on the street date of the magazine. Yet there is still a large nascent market of scanlations that release days ahead. Excuses I've seen from people amount to "if they have the content finished and sit on it, then its their fault" despite the fact we're talking only a handful of days so that a coordinated release can be made. (Takes a few days for print copies to make it to all corners of the country)

    Although to be honest, I believe most of the stuff being released ahead of street date is because of a certain group of individuals called Mangastream that has turned it into a bootlegging business. They do it for the ad revenue on the website, which the Alexa-rank is higher than websites for the actual publishers. Then you have counter-groups that attempt to beat them to release to cost them ad hits. I'm honestly surprised the industry hasn't gone after Mangastream despite them poaching pretty much the entire Top20 best-selling manga series in Japan and receiving millions of hits monthly.

  30. Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    Well, this is a case when calling this "selling" is misleading. "selling" implies transferring some good to buyer, or at least doing something for him that requires any effort.

  31. In the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyright infringement would occur if the subtitled movie was redistributed. If you distributed the subtitles only, WITHOUT the accompanying movie, you could argue fair use. No guarantee of sucess though.

  32. Setback for accessibility to the deaf by TDDPirate · · Score: 1

    The ruling is a setback for accessibility to the deaf of movies and TV programs.
    Same as prohibiting, without rightowners' permission, auditory transcription of books for the benefit of the blind.

    1. Re:Setback for accessibility to the deaf by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      Or people with children who go to bed early, or bitchy neighbours..

      Free subtitle databases are a godsend.

      --
      -
  33. Fuck the Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Dutch are fucking morons. Fuck the Dutch, and fuck BREIN.

  34. Hat Tip to you my man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I'm a bit too much of a goodie two shoes to do that myself, I can certainly respect breaking the law in the pursuit of preservation of content. Given how much source code is being lost every day because employees aren't doing the same at companies they worked for, in order to ensure the preservation in some of their cases of their and their fellow employee's careers worth of work, I can respect the chops it takes to do so (especially if you do it for free so there is no tainting of it being for-profit infringement.)

    I can only hope in the future others will get to live in more enlightened times where information is shared and preserved freely so that others might have the opportunity to delve into the masses of information we have produced and derive enjoyment from whatever of it piques their interests/provides new thoughts and/or experiences.

  35. Fansubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My bet is that in most cases Fansubs create a fanbase and increased sales.

    The experienced sub groups are often better than the professional ones too.

  36. Take that deaf people and anime fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The courts say your wants and needs don't matter.... Don't like it tough, it's a pro business government, so go enjoy your shows without subs.

    1. Re: Take that deaf people and anime fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deaf and anime fans isn't exactly the same thing. A congenital defect verses a liking for pictures of young girls....

  37. Create Alternate Tracts and Storylines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Muddy the water.

    Create Style subs that tell a completely different story than the actual film. Derivative work.:) Probably some great potentials for comedy there.

    Anyone recall an old movie J-Men forever that was spliced together old clips from serials like the black and white serials of Captain America, Buck Rogers and Captain Marvel? I'd totally watch more stuff like that

  38. But the ADA by dprimary · · Score: 1

    I guess no dutch movies allowed in the US

  39. Not Sure I Understand This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they saying that say ... if a group wanted to provide subtitles of Star Wars into ... Apache (or whatever), that would be illegal?

  40. Angry Hitler by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    Just as long as they don't take my angry Hitler away.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  41. Don't quote your favorite book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the court is saying in future litigations. I can't quote an author or book, either? Man, it was the best of times and [it is] the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it [it is] the age of foolishness...

  42. Re:Won't Be Popular, But Here's The Plaintiff's Vi by slugstone · · Score: 0

    I would give you a point, but I have been a bad boy. :-(

  43. USA requires subtitles -- why not Europe? by I75BJC · · Score: 1

    Under the ADA, broadcasters (of all sorts) have to provide a percentage of subtitled works. This is giving deaf and hearing impaired people access to all kinds of visual media. If effect, it gives the handicapped access to previously unaccessible media and the Media access to the handicapped. This handicapped group is, in the USA, a sizable market. Amazon Prime Video made a considerable effort to provide subtitles on the majority of their considerable library. I watched their progress and it was very quick. Netflix, AcornTV and others do/have done the same. The is a case of the USA being much more enlightened and advanced than Europe. The European Community should enter this century with a more enlightened view of the handicapped and commend those who are helping instead of punishing them.

  44. How about we just... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    How about we just sue the producers for releasing content without subtitles - which discriminated against the hard of hearing?!

    Yea. I know. This is a bit of a stretch, yet so is being a prick about a free feature. The producer should get the master, though!

    Yet, we all know where this is going. It's all about the $$$$!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  45. Rant in 3... 2... 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what Hitler is going to say when he finds out.

  46. MST3K dubbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't MST3k a form of subtitle? Certainly sounds like dubbing.

  47. As long as they provide it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a condition of this win, content producers should be required to include subs and described video in all languages.