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

Sucks, but derivative work by d34thm0nk3y · 2017-04-21 07:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Sucks, but derivative work by subanark · 2017-04-21 07:42 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by misexistentialist · 2017-04-21 08:02 · 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!
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by alexo · 2017-04-21 08:09 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by dfn5 · 2017-04-21 08:10 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by mrchaotica · 2017-04-21 08:13 · 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
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 08:30 · Score: 1

For books translations are considered to be derivative work and requires the permission from the copyright holder of the original work.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by parkinglot777 · 2017-04-21 08:40 · 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...
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by wisnoskij · 2017-04-21 08:55 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by vux984 · 2017-04-21 08:55 · 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.
Re: Sucks, but derivative work by dnaumov · 2017-04-21 08:57 · Score: 2

Yet, cover bands in most (all?) countries do not have to pay royalties.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by loonycyborg · 2017-04-21 08:59 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by mark-t · 2017-04-21 09:04 · Score: 2

Irrelevant... it is still a derivative work.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by wisnoskij · 2017-04-21 09:08 · 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.
Re: Sucks, but derivative work by lactose99 · 2017-04-21 09:08 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by St.Creed · 2017-04-21 09:17 · 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)
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by wisnoskij · 2017-04-21 09:28 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by St.Creed · 2017-04-21 09:45 · 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)
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by slew · 2017-04-21 09:59 · 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...
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by westlake · 2017-04-21 10:08 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by harperska · 2017-04-21 10:18 · 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.
Re: Sucks, but derivative work by slew · 2017-04-21 10:30 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by drinkypoo · 2017-04-21 10:41 · 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.'"
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · 2017-04-21 11:10 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · 2017-04-21 11:15 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · 2017-04-21 11:24 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · 2017-04-21 11:30 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by currently_awake · 2017-04-22 01:19 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by Carewolf · 2017-04-22 12:48 · 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.
Re:Sucks, but derivative work by angel'o'sphere · 2017-04-23 00:47 · 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.

Whelp, there goes Google Translate, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 07:35 · 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)?

Re:Whelp, there goes Google Translate, eh? by fustakrakich · 2017-04-21 08:18 · Score: 1

No, this is news for the hearing impaired

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Isn't that obvious? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 07:36 · Score: 1

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

Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 07:38 · 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?

Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 07:47 · 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.
Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by thegarbz · 2017-04-21 08:13 · 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.
Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by wabrandsma · 2017-04-21 08:29 · 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.
Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 08:31 · 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).
Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by drinkypoo · 2017-04-21 10:46 · 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.'"
Re: Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 10:58 · 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.
Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by angel'o'sphere · 2017-04-21 11:39 · 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.
Re:Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by MrMr · 2017-04-21 21:53 · Score: 1

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

Won't Be Popular, But Here's The Plaintiff's View by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 07:39 · Score: 1, Funny

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

Well too bad for them by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 07:43 · 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.

Re: Well too bad for them by jordanjay29 · 2017-04-21 10:29 · 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.
Re: Well too bad for them by currently_awake · 2017-04-22 01:24 · 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.

Question is profit by gurps_npc · 2017-04-21 07:54 · 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

Re:Question is profit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 08:02 · 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.
Re:Question is profit by mark-t · 2017-04-21 09:09 · 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'
Re:Question is profit by loonycyborg · 2017-04-21 09:37 · Score: 1

Incorrect. It's not about money. Fair use covers things like citations and parodies, even if you make money on them.
Re:Question is profit by loonycyborg · 2017-04-21 09:39 · 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.
Re:Question is profit by angel'o'sphere · 2017-04-21 11:51 · 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.

Copyright is for the profit of the creator by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-04-21 07:58 · 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

Re:Copyright is for the profit of the creator by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 08:03 · 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.
Re:Copyright is for the profit of the creator by Aereus · 2017-04-21 09:12 · 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.

Copyright should have an availablity requirement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 08:01 · 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.

Unusual way to be offended by Whooty+McWhooface · 2017-04-21 08:06 · 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?

Re:Unusual way to be offended by pjt33 · 2017-04-21 08:17 · 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?
Re:Unusual way to be offended by Whooty+McWhooface · 2017-04-21 08:30 · 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!
Re:Unusual way to be offended by Headw1nd · 2017-04-21 09:06 · Score: 1

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

Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by SirSlud · 2017-04-21 08:08 · 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"

Are they subtitling, or distributing the movie? by MobyDisk · 2017-04-21 08:10 · 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.

Re:Are they subtitling, or distributing the movie? by wisnoskij · 2017-04-21 09:02 · 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.

No it isn't. by mrchaotica · 2017-04-21 08:15 · 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

Re:No it isn't. by sconeu · 2017-04-21 08:22 · 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.
Re:No it isn't. by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-04-21 08:48 · 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)
Re:No it isn't. by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-04-22 06:17 · 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

no different than translation of books by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 08:22 · 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.

Re:no different than translation of books by wisnoskij · 2017-04-21 09:04 · 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.

Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-21 08:23 · 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.

Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by Hognoxious · 2017-04-21 08:24 · 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."

Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by fustakrakich · 2017-04-21 08:25 · 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!”

Re:Hitler will be happy. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-04-21 08:37 · 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

Former fansubber here by snarfies · 2017-04-21 08:43 · 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.

Re:Former fansubber here by PinkyGigglebrain · 2017-04-21 13:47 · 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!

Re:Won't Be Popular, But Here's The Plaintiff's Vi by PPH · 2017-04-21 08:46 · Score: 1

Came to post this link. Left satisfied.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

So MST3K is illegal? by WillAffleckUW · 2017-04-21 08:47 · Score: 1

Or is it only because they're not mocking?

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:So MST3K is illegal? by ewhac · 2017-04-21 09:08 · 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

Since we have not figured out how to profit.... by Zurkeyon3733 · 2017-04-21 08:47 · Score: 1

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

The Downfall ... by PPH · 2017-04-21 08:51 · Score: 2

... of fair use.

Youtube video (with subtitles) to follow shortly.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by Aereus · 2017-04-21 09:25 · 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.

Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by loonycyborg · 2017-04-21 10:14 · 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.

Setback for accessibility to the deaf by TDDPirate · 2017-04-21 10:51 · 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.

Re:Setback for accessibility to the deaf by n3r0.m4dski11z · 2017-04-21 13:39 · Score: 1

Or people with children who go to bed early, or bitchy neighbours..
Free subtitle databases are a godsend.

--
-

But the ADA by dprimary · 2017-04-21 14:56 · Score: 1

I guess no dutch movies allowed in the US

Angry Hitler by wkwilley2 · 2017-04-21 16:12 · Score: 1

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

--
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?

USA requires subtitles -- why not Europe? by I75BJC · 2017-04-22 04:24 · 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.

How about we just... by martinfb · 2017-04-22 07:11 · 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.

Slashdot Mirror

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

88 of 137 comments (clear)