Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Police, Copyright Industry Raid Movie Subtitle Fansite

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the because-fans-wanting-to-understand-your-movies-is-terrible dept.

Movies 344

Swedish Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge reports that a fansite providing subtitles for movies has been raided by Swedish police at the behest of the copyright industry. "The movie subtitle fansite undertexter.se, literally meaning subtitles.se, is a site where people contribute their own translations of movies. This lets people who aren't good at the original language of a movie or cartoon put those fan-made subtitles – fansubs – on top of the movie or cartoon. Fansubbing is a thriving culture which usually provides better-than-professional subtitles for new episodes with less than 24 hours of turnaround (whereas the providers of the original cartoon or movie can easily take six months or more). What’s remarkable about this raid is that the copyright industry has decided to do a full-out raid against something that is entirely fan-made. It underscores the general sentiment of the copyright monopoly not protecting the creator of artwork, but protecting the big distribution monopolies, no matter who actually created the art."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fuck 'em (5, Insightful)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year ago | (#44241763)

Sure there is some copyright issues with translatins, but seriously, fuck the copyright holders, and the middle-men, in this case. And, of course, fuck the police.

What the industry needs to do instead of this sort of bullshit, is to contract with the fansubbers, and pay them for their work. The fansubbers provider a much quicker turn around on translations and subs, and are doing it for the love of the work. What better way to make yourself look even better, than to not just tolerate, but to pay!?

The fansubbers allow people to watch the media who would otherwise not be able to (due to not understanding the language). That's great. I wish them well.

Re:Fuck 'em (5, Insightful)

sosume (680416) | about a year ago | (#44241841)

Well, those darned Swedes were in a clear violation of U.S. Code Title 17, 102 and 106. Which is punishable with a fine of up to $150,000, they should have known the law. Which makes me wonder, does the EU copyright lobby organize raids on companies in the US? Would the FBI cooperate?

Re:Fuck 'em (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242207)

bullshit...

"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ...

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;"

They didn't grant them the right to create this derivative work.

One of the many ways that "intellectual property" is a fucking lie.

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242331)

All works are "derivative " from something already done.. but then again, I'm preaching to the choir.

Re:Fuck 'em (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242475)

There's a pretty decent fair use argument for fansubs, though, especially in the absence of a legal translation. This is doubly so for countries where they might only receive altered versions of a work.

Re:Fuck 'em (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#44242473)

They do:
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20100818/midtown/port-authority-raids-midtown-perfume-wholesaler-hawking-counterfeit-goods [dnainfo.com]

That's just the first one that came up in Google. They do this all the time.
although, I'd argue this kind of raid is a heck of a lot more legitimate as they are actually ripping people off by selling them fake stuff.

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242535)

Which makes me wonder, does the EU copyright lobby organize raids on companies in the US? Would the FBI cooperate?

Of course not. It's strictly one-way. I think it's protection money :)

Re:Fuck 'em (0, Offtopic)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#44241849)

Movies and music are NOT free. Get that through your head. You might find it convenient to freely stream a flick some conglomerate of investors sank $100 million to produce. No matter how you rationalize what you're doing you're taking for free what someone spent money to produce and is trying to sell.

The fundamentals will not change. Not thinking a movie is worth of your $10 is not an excuse. Thinking the lead actor is an untalented douche is not an excuse. Hating the producer is not an excuse. Your convenience is not an excuse. You are not entitled to free shit and you are not a delicate unique little snowflake.

Re:Fuck 'em (-1, Troll)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44241887)

Either you're a troll or a fucking asshole who didn't even care to read the topic before posting his pro-RIAA/MPAA bullshit.

Re:Fuck 'em (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241893)

Woah there... Who said anything about pirating? If you wanted to watch a movie you bought that was not in a language you can understand, wouldn't you want subtitles?

Re:Fuck 'em (4, Insightful)

Ash Vince (602485) | about a year ago | (#44242169)

Woah there... Who said anything about pirating? If you wanted to watch a movie you bought that was not in a language you can understand, wouldn't you want subtitles?

Yes, but in many cases it is cheaper to buy an english only version of a movie than one with local subtitles. The MPAA want to preserve this charging of countries other than the US more money for the same crap.

Just because this makes sense does not really make it right though. I think they missed the point here as in many cases the user contributed subtitles are better than the original subtitles they provide as they often contain local slang that only someone who can swear well in both languages can make. They should have let this stand as all it had was text which without a copy of the video and sound would be pretty useless.

Re:Fuck 'em (3, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44242361)

Woah there... Who said anything about pirating? If you wanted to watch a movie you bought that was not in a language you can understand, wouldn't you want subtitles?

Yes, but in many cases it is cheaper to buy an english only version of a movie than one with local subtitles. The MPAA want to preserve this charging of countries other than the US more money for the same crap.

Just because this makes sense does not really make it right though. I think they missed the point here as in many cases the user contributed subtitles are better than the original subtitles they provide as they often contain local slang that only someone who can swear well in both languages can make. They should have let this stand as all it had was text which without a copy of the video and sound would be pretty useless.

Interestingly, beyond that, I don't think this raid would even be legal in the US. The fans are creating commentary on the original work; they are not creating a derivative. They do not have access to the screenplays or the commercial subtitle scripts -- so everything they write is purely commentary on the movie, which just happens to be able to sync up with the actual video/audio. The fact that the studios eventually offer a similar product for sale is neither here nor there -- they have no copyright claim over the subtitles.

The same argument could be used for music lyrics, but I think intent would be much more important here, as people are trying to re-create the songwriter's lyric sheet, which is not what's happening with movies and subs.

If this still doesn't fly in court, the answer is easy: add in extra commentary that is obviously not derived from the original content in any way other thaat it is a fan's reaction to it.

Of course, this all assumes you live in the US -- the laws the US shoved down on the rest of the world are likely more draconian and don't have the appropriate fair use exemptions. Anyone in Sweden care to educate us as to whether this is the case?

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

gnupun (752725) | about a year ago | (#44242605)

The fans are creating commentary on the original work; they are not creating a derivative.

Really??! The subtitles are derived from the original soundtrack of the movie -- they are a derivative.

By providing subtitles freely, they've cut a good chunk of sales of DVDs in the language of the subtitles.

Re:Fuck 'em (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44242727)

If you wanted to watch a movie you bought that was not in a language you can understand, wouldn't you want subtitles?

At the risk of going slightly off-topic, I would like to point out that this is not the only reason to desire subtitles. I have some hearing loss. It is not severe, but I do occasionally have to ask people to repeat what they said, and I cannot relax and enjoy any movie without subtitles. I strain to listen, and still miss things and have to rewind.

Subtitles are also a great way to learn a foreign language, and even build up your native language vocabulary. I live in a trilingual family (English/Mandarin/Spanish) and subtitles have been a great tool for me and my family. I can read Chinese/Spanish much better than I can understand them when spoken. So to improve my listening skills, I watch English movies with English subtitles, Chinese movies with Chinese subtitles, and Spanish moves with Spanish subtitles.

If a movie does not have good, accurate subtitles, then I don't watch it.

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241895)

Movies and music are NOT free. Get th[...]

Well, it was nice knowing the GP's account. Shame it had to go out in such an unfortunate manner like that, but after the apocalyptic downmods let up, I'm sure someone will give a proper eulogy, provided the groupthink hasn't forced any memory of it out of record.

Re:Fuck 'em (3, Informative)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about a year ago | (#44241929)

This isn't Reddit. Once a comment is modded to -1, no further downmods are permitted as the comment as reached its limit.

Re:Fuck 'em (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44242333)

yeah, on slashdot you can write any poppycock shit you want and still retain EXCELLENT karma.

and about movies not being free.. well.. fuck me. how come the movies that are hardest hit by piracy happen to be making the most money..

Re:Fuck 'em (4, Informative)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#44242383)

Unless it gets upmodded as "Funny," which gives the comment a point, but no karma to the user. With the comment now scored 0 instead of -1, it may be downmodded -1 Troll, which will cause the user to lose 1 karma. So, if you really want to hammer somebody who's already been modded to -1, mod them Funny and wait for another mod to correct your "mistake."

Re:Fuck 'em (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241925)

Can you read? No, seriously, are you actually able to read? Because you sure as fuck didn't read what GP wrote. It looks like you read some alternate-universe fantasy post that said "EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE, FUCK THE BIG EVIL CORPORATIONS." Here's the thing, though: that universe isn't this one. GP's post had nothing to do with cost-value or any of that. The point was that "fansubbers allow people to watch the media who would otherwise not be able to (due to not understanding the language)." Nobody is going to pay $10 for a product they can't fucking understand, you goddamn retard.

Re:Fuck 'em (5, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | about a year ago | (#44242199)

Can you read? No, seriously, are you actually able to read?

No. That's why he's got a hatred for subtitles.

Re:Fuck 'em (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44241935)

Get this through your head. the movie makers made or lost their tens of millions the first few weeks of the thing opening, and some more when DVD released. that doesn't change with this fansubbing practice. The equillibrium state of information is to be free in both the sense of known and worth, get that through your head, and the original intention of copyright with short expiration term was that works become part of the culture, get that through your head. The entertainment cartels are using law enforcement as their private employees bypassing due process, get that through your head.

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241939)

Movies and music ARE free. Get that through your head. It is impossible for you or your ilk to detect that I am downloading movies and music from DDL sites and Usenet through proxies in other nations.

You, the copyright lawyers, US legislators and all law enforcement can all go eat tasty shitpiles.

Re:Fuck 'em (5, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#44242017)

Movies and music are NOT free. Get that through your head. You might find it convenient to freely stream a flick some conglomerate of investors sank $100 million to produce. No matter how you rationalize what you're doing you're taking for free what someone spent money to produce and is trying to sell.

The fundamentals will not change. Not thinking a movie is worth of your $10 is not an excuse. Thinking the lead actor is an untalented douche is not an excuse. Hating the producer is not an excuse. Your convenience is not an excuse. You are not entitled to free shit and you are not a delicate unique little snowflake.

They aren't hosting movies, they are transcribing movies into subtitles, if anything, they are making the movies more desirable by making them available in many more languages.

Aside from the obvious benefit for those that want to watch a movie filmed in a language they don't speak, I also found it useful to add subtitles to movies I already own. When my wife's Japanese speaking family came to visit from Japan, I was able to find subtitle files that matched up with some titles that I owned on DVD. I had to adjust the timing a bit to get them to match up, but it opened up a lot of movie possibilities that wouldn't otherwise be available. Few movies sold in the USA are subtitled in Japanese (though I did find a few Japanese movies on Netflix that are subtitled in English). I did see some movies on Amazon.jp that were English with Japanese subtitles, but since I lack a region-2 or multiregion DVD player, the movie industry has made it impossible for me to view them.

I've already paid for the movie and its content for personal viewing, so it's hard for the movie industry to say that someone translating from English->Japanese is stealing their creative work.

Re:Fuck 'em (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#44242253)

That's the entire point. The don't want a master DVD with all languages. They profit by keeping regional copies separate. They're pissed that this fan site undermines their profit margins by making this all open on the Internet.

Re:Fuck 'em (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44242133)

they could just spend 200 million on it.

I've yet to see budget correlate to how good the movie is and I have limited amount of time. Also I haven't noticed any correlation in if the movie was worth making regards to amount of piracy, at least in the negative sense when it comes to the movie making a profit.

If nobody is bothering to watch it for free then the movie has usually tanked badly in box office.

as to who wanted the raid to happen? maybe, just maybe it was the swedish writers union. maybe they got tipped off that netflix in nordic countries got caught from using fansubs ;D. also subsequently that is why the official translations suck ass, they're done by professionals who don't care about the subject matter on fixed fees - it doesn't matter to them one fucking dime if they change the whole plot on it's head by their shitty translation. fuck 'em and fuck 'em high.

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242191)

The movies and music I make are free, and I try to stay away from that Hollywood garbage, rots the brain.
Make your own art, people. Live in your community.

Re:Fuck 'em (2)

Bonewalker (631203) | about a year ago | (#44242283)

I watch movies for free all the time over at a friend's house. He rented or bought them, I paid nothing. If he loans me the physical media, is that illegal? I still paid nothing. Now just stretch it a bit further and say he ripped it for the purposes of back up, then loaned me that copy? There isn't a lot of difference in these scenarios, and it proves, that yes, you can legally watch movies for free sometimes.

Re:Fuck 'em (2)

Achra (846023) | about a year ago | (#44242731)

I watch movies for free all the time over at a friend's house. He rented or bought them, I paid nothing. If he loans me the physical media, is that illegal? I still paid nothing. Now just stretch it a bit further and say he ripped it for the purposes of back up, then loaned me that copy? There isn't a lot of difference in these scenarios, and it proves, that yes, you can legally watch movies for free sometimes.

Well, no, there actually is a difference in those scenarios. In the first scenario, you are not breaking the law or committing a crime. In the second scenario, a DVD is being decrypted. This is a violation of the DMCA and a crime under US statutory law. You should always strive to be aware of the laws that you break. https://www.eff.org/es/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca [eff.org]

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242379)

Get this through your head: You're not entitled to my money. Ever. Period.

Yet those who support the copyright lobby pass laws to take it from me against my will, EVEN IF I AVOID THEIR SHIT. For example, every recordable CD I buy is subject to a levy.

Thinking that I'm going to use that CD to listen to your music is not an excuse to steal money from me. When you steal from me, you break the social contract. When you break the social contract, there are consequences. The consequences can range from all sorts of things, but I find the most appropriate consequences isn't to steal your shit, but instead to illegally copy it (Which isn't stealing at all, but seems to aggravate the fuck out of you--which is exactly what I want to do. Eventually you'll figure out not to steal my money and we'll come to an appropriate agreement on your rights to my wallet... ie: None Until then, suck on some lemons).

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242553)

Don't worry the anti-everything crowed doesn't agree. They are greedy for the most part but see everyone else as greedy. We pay $50+ here in America for concerts because of music pirating, but the idiots still think its fine and think they are putting one over on evil companies. I'd rather pay 15 dollars for a CD and 20 for a concert and still come out ahead but that is me.

Socialists and the like pick and choose what should be free and its everything except for what they work on. After all art is not hard work is it?

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242627)

If the investors can't make their money back because of this, it was a bad investment. It was NOT the fault of fans who bought the movie and wanted better subtitles. Get THAT through your head.

Re:Fuck 'em (2)

tqk (413719) | about a year ago | (#44241921)

What the industry needs to do instead of this sort of bullshit, is to contract with the fansubbers, and pay them for their work.

Or, do their jobs producing timely translations of their own works. Then there'd be no need/call/market for fansubbers in the first place.

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242149)

What the industry needs to do instead of this sort of bullshit, is to contract with the fansubbers, and pay them for their work.

Reasonable, but neither side will let that happen. Content providers would only go into a deal that release the content through their channels exclusively. And I doubt the thriving culture (with connections to the pirate party) would participate if they "sold out". On one side you have the industry which believes they should be compensated for their IP and the other side believes the consumption of media is a human right.

Misleading article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241765)

The copyright industry may have decided to ask the police to do a raid on it. The police are the ones who decide to do the raid.

Re:Misleading article (4, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44241955)

not quite, government minion of big corporation made police do it. your government is under control of big corporations.

Re:Misleading article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242385)

Correction: Government cooperates with those that donate to their elected officials' campaigns directly, or to the parties state and national committees. There is no direct control. Just very fluid cooperation.

Re:Misleading article (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44242509)

and no direct bribery, insider information for stocks/markets or blackmail at all, no sir.......bwahahahaha

Re:Misleading article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242501)

This is a conspiracy theory. It is interesting that conspiracy theorists are upvoted heavily on Slashdot. To me it illustrates contemporary extremism.

Re:Misleading article (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44242601)

no it is mainstream news. read or watch real mainstream news sometime. 95% of congressmen are corporate bitches, for example. sorry for the sad news.

all you need to say is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242655)

the usa is communist

it's much easier and shorter

Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive right (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44241805)

I don't see how it's "entirely fan-made". Under current law, a translation of an audiovisual work's original script into another language is a derivative work.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44241861)

Under current law, a translation of an audiovisual work's original script into another language is a derivative work.

Surely I can't be the only one who finds such a law to fall under the category of "royally fucked?"

Other than being an aspect of the profit-protection racket, what possible, legitimate reason would there be for that kind of legislation?

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241885)

So that a company in another country can't, for example, take the novel you wrote, translate it and not pay you a cent.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#44242095)

You may have a point for things like books. But this is certainly not a case for movie subtitles. How many people do you know who will skip seeing a movie just because they have the subtitles? Even deaf people will want to see the visuals.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242145)

I fail to see the relevance of your post. No one said anything about someone skipping the movie because of a fansub. Te point is that the translations of all creative works are derivative. Why should a movie script be exempt other than because of the Slashdot groupthink hatred of movie companies? What exactly is different between a book and a movie script?

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (4, Insightful)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about a year ago | (#44242197)

Because the translated script by itself is not useful. There is no reason to pirate subtitles alone, so there's no need for those to be protected too. If I download fan-made subtitles, I still need to get the movie for them to be useful. It's the AUDIOVISUAL part which contains the entertainment utility (and deserving of some protection).

A book is different because it is solely the words themselves that contain the entertainment utility.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242713)

Because the translated script by itself is not useful.

While in itself that's a correct statement, to the movie industry it is a problem in that it breaks their region code.
The region code is there to enable the movie industry to sell the same move for big bucks in the west and sell it far cheaper elsewhere, thus increasing profits. The fear I suppose is that this would allow people to buy a cheap Chinese version of a movie (or download it in english) and then apply subtitles in their desired tongue for free, thus cutting industry revenue.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#44242211)

It is derivative. But translations by themselves are worthy of copyright protection as well. If you are one of those people who only care about the letter of the law and not the spirit of a law you neither much of a citizen nor much of a human being.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44242301)

> I fail to see the relevance of your post.

Of course not. You're too much of a corporate toadie.

His post was an obvious prelude to a fair use defense. Fansubbing does not devalue the work. It is not piracy in any meaningful sense of the word. It's merely end users managing to find some way of making a particular creative work more useful.

This "derivative" also can't be used without the original.

Copyright related monopoly powers should be minimized rather than maximized as a matter of basic public policy and because that's what the copyright clause in the US Constitution indicates.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242373)

Of course not. You're too much of a corporate toadie.

Name calling. The realm of those with no legitimate argument.

His post was an obvious prelude to a fair use defense.

Then it's a pretty poor one. Fair Use has never covered distributing to others the translation of a creative work in any country. Creating the translation for your own use would be.

Fansubbing does not devalue the work.

And who exactly made the argument it did? Oh right, no one.

It is not piracy in any meaningful sense of the word.

No one called it piracy.

It's merely end users managing to find some way of making a particular creative work more useful.

Great but distribution of such a work is not fair use.

Copyright related monopoly powers should be minimized rather than maximized as a matter of basic public policy and because that's what the copyright clause in the US Constitution indicates.

I agree, but then it should be applied to all things not just movie scripts. My point was that there was a double standard being used without justification simply because it involved the movie industry.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242557)

I really hope that applies to movie scenes as well. Because I saw a movie where the plot was something along the lines of a girl being captured and some guy went ahead and rescued her. Yesterday I saw a movie that COPIED this plot! How is this not derivative work? Where are the lawsuits?

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (1)

kesuki (321456) | about a year ago | (#44242625)

yeah but fansubs are a community of people who have more time than money and they allow more people to enjoy the artwork, and in the case of anime it can resurect anime from the dead and give it new life, and are supposed to stop sharing when the official usa launch is announced. basically fansubs are unpaid critics of anime and do a better job letting their community know which anime to buy when it hits. fansubs are not restricted to the anime fans, and there are torrenters who ignore the 'until usa launch' but in general fansub communities are a good thing for most studios, the movies tolerated fan subs because nobody wanted to be the first to be making enemies among vocal fans of their products. but technically yes, fansubs are 'piracy' of content. but if you want to mention it, everything from tapes, cds, radios, dvds, blurays, vhs, betamax, tivo, piratebay etc all make piracy easy, which is why copyright is an epic fail. everything the customer wants to do with the technology is 'bad' and there is no way to stop someone from learning how to get access if they are determined not to pay. how much of microsofts user base use pirating tools? who made the most money off this? how much overlap in technology is there between 'real' users vs piracy? it is not easy.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (1)

sosume (680416) | about a year ago | (#44241891)

To answer your question, what legitimate use can there be for custom subtitles for movies which have not yet been released to the public ..

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242123)

Cinemas wanting to provide subtitles in languages the studios would never care about? Maybe unlikely but certainly possible.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44242135)

Non sequitur - nowhere in TFS or TFA is it stated that the fan-subs were made for illegally pirated movies.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242165)

+1 funny. Yeah just like how the Pirate Bay is only used for Linux ISOs and public domain media?

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242641)

We should also close down this road-network of ours, criminals are using it to flee the crimescenes!!!!

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242097)

The translation is a derivative work applies to any creative work. Would you find it acceptable that a translation of a GFDL or CC licensed work was not considered a derivative work? If not, why should it being a movie script make any difference?

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (5, Informative)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44241871)

Sure, but the actual point of it all is that you already have the film (so you've paid). One more example of copyright law getting it completely wrong.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242175)

Sure, but the actual point of it all is that you already have the film (so you've paid). One more example of copyright law getting it completely wrong.

Totally wrong. If you have the disc how do you think you can mux in fan subs? The people using these are torrenters, not those that just bought a disc. Yes, there are ways to rip, transcode and remux, but be honest, we all know these subs are for pirated videos.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44242325)

No. We don't all know.

You are just being a huge asshole and just declaring everyone to be thieves with nothing to back that up except your own stupidity and total lack of morals.

You are simply projecting. YOU are the dishonest scum and you are projecting that on the rest of us.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242715)

I really don't care about this anymore. Fine, call me a thief. If downloading things, which I think is fine, is thievery, then breaking into someones house maybe is right too. I think I'll start doing that. Blame those who equated these two things, not me.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (2)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44242697)

Totally wrong. If you have the disc how do you think you can mux in fan subs? The people using these are torrenters, not those that just bought a disc. Yes, there are ways to rip, transcode and remux, but be honest, we all know these subs are for pirated videos.

Fansubbing long predates torrents, or the Internet having the bandwidth (to the typical house) needed for video. Fansubbing was done for years with a Xeroxed typed sheet (or later emailed or posted text), and you were mostly on your own to match up the lines of translation to the spoken lines. I remember watching anime at cons while reading along on the translation I was handed.

That bein said, it was also extremely common to pass out copies of the video tape of the anime at those cons, but usually that would stop when the video could be bought in America.

Am I weird in that I ripped my entire DVD library, stuck all the DVDs in boxes, and only watch the digital copies anymore? I suspect that's not so strange among the sort of geek who would have a use for a fansub track in the first place. And adding a new subtitle track to an existing rip can be easily scripted to a single command.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242725)

You're wrong. I BUY Japanese movies that aren't available in the US, and use fan subs because I don't speak Japanese.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#44242289)

No, the actual point is that subtitles are derivative works - which require permission from the holders of the copyright to create. Which is an example of copyright getting it exactly right. You aren't allowed to muck with someone else's work without their permission. That's the whole point of copyright,

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44242355)

> You aren't allowed to muck with someone else's work without their permission. That's the whole point of copyright,

No it isn't.

The whole point of copyright is that we do have something to muck with. Copyright exists to foster what you would describe as piracy. It is not a virtual land grab. That's just corporate propaganda.

No. The whole point of copyright is piracy.

The corporations have just distorted things.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242619)

NO! The whole point of copyright is to PROMOTE science and art. It EXPECTS people to "muck" with the work of another. That is how art advances. It is perfectly legal to MUCK with a work. Please read up on what a PARODY is.

Paid copies (1)

phorm (591458) | about a year ago | (#44242337)

Actually, I'd imagine they're more concerns about such subs being used in 0-day TPB releases.
Cut off the subtitles, and sudden the movies are a lot less interesting to download. Of course, there may not be any official copy with localized subtitles either, but the industry doesn't care about that.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241881)

Just because it's law, doesn't make it right.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242033)

Such activity using taxpayer-funded police on behalf of corrupt industries is not in the interests of humanity, education, or techno-social development.

In December of 2001, RaiUno (an Italian television network) showed a John Wayne "western" film. When John Wayne`s character asked how much the haul from the train robbery was, the dubbed answer came back, "venti-cinque euro".

At that point i realised that the system of dubbing (with oversight and modification by various Information Ministries/ Propaganda ministries) is why countries which do not have subtitled original versions aired tend to have a lesser command of English. For example, the Dutch (all foreign films are original audio with Dutch subtitles) can discern between Queen`s English and american English, whereas Italians generally lack understanding.

In many cases, the "official" translations/subtitles are either sub-standard, doctored/modified, or otherwise fail to communicate the design of the scriptwriters.

These pompous ACTA-SOPA hollywood sheisters and their indentured giovernment law enforcement are an assault on, and an insult to, 21st century intellect; they must be stopped.

Officers tasked with enforcement of ACTA-SOPA are actually competent enought to track down massive financial fraudsters, corrupt bankers, and other complex fraudsters who use computers and newtorks to launder and avoid taxation of their money, but unfortunately their training and potential for catching the "bad guys" gets diverted to the detriment of knowledge-based society.

What is Ceasar`s, but a pizzeria.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242297)

What's a newtork, and how does one use it? I'm imagining a very brutish newt, carrying a large club.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242623)

its a fair maiden on a chain; to be used to do the washing down the river, and trained as bait for suckers like Eliot Spitzer...

Next time i shall be sure to kill that unauthorized "msspellcheck" process..... haha, typo, thats "networks", and yes, the ACTA/SOPA law enfarcement heirarchy has diverted skilled IT cops from chasing down the bad-bankers (and tax-evading,coke-snorting hollywood bosses), to stifling knowledge and criminalising youths.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year ago | (#44242183)

I don't see how it's "entirely fan-made". Under current law, a translation of an audiovisual work's original script into another language is a derivative work.

Perhaps true, but actually preposterous. I can invent a contrived language that maps the dialog of one movie directly into the dialog of another movie (at least if there are only two speakers).

Only in US-style banana republics. (5, Insightful)

boorack (1345877) | about a year ago | (#44242269)

Or are you trying to apply corrupt US law onto Sweden ? There was similiar case in Poland (napisy.org) few years ago. Police raided site administrator and some folks who did actual translation. Then it tool 6 years for prosecutor to determine that those translations were actually legal because it was voice->text translation, not text->text, so it did not constitute derivative work. Yet prosecutors did everything in their power to prolong this case, so it took 6 years to close this case. From copyright cartel point of view it is mission accomplished: napisy.org is still defunct. Falkvinge is right that we truly have two-tiered justice system worldwide. It is totally corrupt, yet as long as people still get their daily fox-news-style crap-propaganda, everyone is apathetic enough to just get along with whatever fraud our corporate overlords instigate on us.

Re:Translation is a copyright owner's exclusive ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242531)

How does the fact the law calls it a derivative work negate the fact it is "entirely fan-made"? You statement makes no sense (nor does the modding up you got).

Yet more proof that copyrights are NOT good (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241829)

Yet more proof that copyrights are NOT good for the public. They are only good for big media and other sociopathic entities with deep pockets.

Derivative work (4, Informative)

Peter Simpson (112887) | about a year ago | (#44241855)

Sadly, you do require the copyright holder's permission to create one...which is sad if the creator of the original work chooses not to authorize it in your language. I can see both sides of this, but there should be a loophole for non-commercial works. There's no way the studio can show economic losses, and the derivative work is valueless in and of itself (without the original film).

Re:Derivative work (4, Interesting)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44241919)

And it's not only about language barriers but also about the disabled. If I were them I'd look up to see if there's any laws about making works accessible to the deaf. There's laws about government websites in the USA, surely there's a loophole somewhere about deaf people and movies.

Re:Derivative work (2)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | about a year ago | (#44242177)

This, this right here reveals a valid point. Region locks, limited releases, and so forth are supposed to be about geographical areas, not the language. If "Rocky 30" gets released in the US only, there is nothing restricting a Chinese speaking American from watching the film. Claiming that one is "making content available" to an audience who hasn't been permitted yet is a load of horse shit. However, since by some countries' laws content might be restricted, I assume the derivative works could potentially inherit those restrictions. I think it's obvious that distinction isn't clear. Seems a better practice to work with the site in helping them understand where the content is supposed to be available. There is nothing stopping the content provider from getting paid for a film. However, I do completely understand how this mindset doesn't hold up for books, and rightfully so. With books, making the translation of the book availble would make the core value of the product worthless. The core value of a DVD is not in the text.

Re:Derivative work (4, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44241981)

Sadly, you do require the copyright holder's permission to create one...which is sad if the creator of the original work chooses not to authorize it in your language.

I can see both sides of this, but there should be a loophole for non-commercial works. There's no way the studio can show economic losses, and the derivative work is valueless in and of itself (without the original film).

there should be loophole for partials. the subtitles aren't really that useful on their own.

however all nordic countries have basically translator guilds which do sometimes hilarious work, but have been bitching lately how their unionizing hasn't gone all too well. problem is that spending couple of years in university apparently doesn't make good as good translators.. since they don't care shit about the material. fans do.

some of the best subs I've seen have been for japanese stuff, with the translator bothering to mention texts, clues and culturally significant symbols as well.

Re:Derivative work (1)

Pofy (471469) | about a year ago | (#44242511)

Sadly, you do require the copyright holder's permission to create one...

No, not really, see, Swedish Copyright law 1 kap 4, you would even be the copyright holder of the translation. However, the exact same restrictions applies to your translation as to the original work. You are not allowed to make it publicly available (which the site did) but you can make it available for smaller groups and others can copy it and so on.

Because the broken one costs more (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241911)

I think that part of their motivation to attack such a site is that people using these subtitles are likely to be using them with pirated versions of the shows/movies. You can select your own subtitle file on many media players for the show you downloaded, however, things you are watching on TV/Blu-ray/Betamax do not usually have the option to overlay custom subtitle files.

Mind you, this just lends more credence to the argument that legitimately purchased versions are often worse than pirated ones because they lack such functionality.

Re:Because the broken one costs more (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44242387)

Companies that have tried to market playback devices that allowed for such tie ins with user created content have been litigated off the market. If not for abusive content companies, these subtitle files likely would be perfectly usable with DVD players from the likes of Sony.

Of course with a general purpose machine (HTPC), you can pretty much do anything.

The message left on the website after the raid (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241917)

"We apologize for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked."

Re:The message left on the website after the raid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242205)

Ralph The Wonder Llama would be pretty upset about this.

Re:The message left on the website after the raid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242685)

Now, if only this happened: "We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked."

remember there is only one law (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241965)

and this (and lots of other things) makes sense

"don't inconvenience those with more power than you" is the whole of the law

all of civilization is just a thin wrapper around this one simple truth

in this case the media/copyright holders have the power of money and influence, the are colluding with those who in government who have the power of the gun

the people running the website are inconveniencing the media companies because the website is chipping away at the media companies' illusion of control

the people in "law enforcement" are happy to comply because most individuals who are attracted to that profession are sadists who gain pleasure from exercising power over other people. They are also cowards because they are too scared to exercise power without the anonymity and "legitimacy" provided by the profession

just remember the one true law and everything becomes clear

Re:remember there is only one law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242053)

I mostly agree with you, aside from the fact there are plenty of laws out there that do not harm or inconvenience those in power, yet are still illegal anyway.

The major danger is to inconvenience those in power- but you're not safe doing harmless stuff either.

Re:remember there is only one law (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#44242477)

I mostly agree with you, aside from the fact there are plenty of laws out there that do not harm or inconvenience those in power, yet are still illegal anyway.

The major danger is to inconvenience those in power- but you're not safe doing harmless stuff either.

Those laws exist to divide and control the populace so they do not turn on their betters.

"This Left-Right paradigm concept theorizes that the two opposing political parties utilize their tremendous hold over mainstream media to dramatize political distractions and engage in covert warfare and operations, in grand performances of bureaucratic rivalry meant to propagandize and divide the populace. Divisive issues are purposefully fed through the major media outlets to divert attention away from the ruling class's hidden and ulterior (and sometimes global) agendas. By drawing attention to the differences between the two embedded political systems, ideologies, races and classes, the political groups obscure political clarity and divide unity among the masses. The tactic creates confusion and frustration among the population, which enables the ruling class to increase and consolidate their wealth and power through maintaining an illusion of a two-party system of checks and balances that actually works."

Well, d'uh (1)

mbone (558574) | about a year ago | (#44242085)

It underscores the general sentiment of the copyright monopoly not protecting the creator of artwork, but protecting the big distribution monopolies, no matter who actually created the art.

The end result of this will be to destroy copyright. I give it 10 years.

View from Thailand (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242107)

As a native English speaker living in Thailand for a few years, I can offer a prospective from this side of the earth. Legalities aside, the native Thai movies have English subtitles during the first run in the theater. However, when the movies are released on DVD, they do not have the English subtitles. They used to have them, lets say 5 years ago, but because of piracy of (Thai) movies abroad (read: Malaysia), they no longer distribute DVDs with the English subtitles. On a 'blockbuster' release, the distribution rights for other outside of Thailand will be picked up by some company, which will usually include the English subtitles, as well as the native languages for whereever it being distributed. As a consumer here, that means if I wish to watch a normal Thai movie here, I better see it in the theater, because nobody will pick up the distribution, hence, there won't be a DVD release with English subtitles. As far as the raids go, I can see why the entertainment industry doesn't like fan subs, at least from this angle. What I don't necessarily see is why they have enough pull to make raids like this happen.

Sweden is an US colony by now (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44242241)

Along with UK veto'd the discussion of NSA spying without informing their population [wlcentral.org] , wiretapped Russia [falkvinge.net] , and we know what they did with Assange and Pirate Bay. From a country that used to be proud of its defense of human rights the path to the bottom was pretty fast.

Re:Sweden is an US colony by now (1)

tftp (111690) | about a year ago | (#44242591)

From a country that used to be proud of its defense of human rights the path to the bottom was pretty fast.

There is a big difference between being proud of its defense of human rights and actually defending those rights.

For example, the USA had no plans to defend human rights of victims of Luis Posada Carriles [wikipedia.org] , or of Branch Davidians, or of Vicky Weaver [wikipedia.org] who wasn't accused of anything to begin with, and of Sammy Weaver who was shot in the back and also killed. All that talk about "defense of human rights" is just hypocrisy used as weapon in big politics. Domestically, you have no inherent human rights whatsoever, and your life isn't even worth a drop gun. Your rights are only defined by who you are, who you know, and who you are up against.

Re:Sweden is an US colony by now (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44242709)

Along with UK veto'd the discussion of NSA spying without informing their population [wlcentral.org] , wiretapped Russia [falkvinge.net] , and we know what they did with Assange and Pirate Bay. From a country that used to be proud of its defense of human rights the path to the bottom was pretty fast.

hmm where did you get that? the swedish freedom is the freedom to do nothing. there's even worse cases in past 12 years than what you provided though.

their biggest human rights faults have always been being too trusting of the americans wanting to do the right thing, or germans, or whoever. heck, they sell offensive weaponry too, as if USA wasn't using it in offensive ways.

I'm not sure (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#44242313)

"It underscores the general sentiment of the copyright monopoly not protecting the creator of artwork, but protecting the big distribution monopolies, no matter who actually created the art."

I'm not sure that outside of small bubble of people who don't believe in copyright at all (let alone understand the concept that others have rights in the first place), that such sentiment is general.

Re:I'm not sure (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44242433)

I think you will find that most people realize that they have rights and object to the idea that individual liberties should be subservient to the rights of corporations.

Of course most non-enthusiasts won't realize what interesting things are being kept from them due to corporate lobbying.

Re:I'm not sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242519)

It would be common among anybody who has done even cursory research on the matter. You might argue that copyright could do that if it were kept within reasonable limits, but we've dialed it up to the extremes to where it's not a realistic prospect overall.

Re:I'm not sure (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44242575)

s/don't believe in copyright at all/pay attention to these issues already.

FTFY.

If you want to tell me the two bubbles are essentially identical, I would not necessarily disagree.

As the latter bubble expands, so does the former, generally speaking.

Let me see if I understand... (2)

bitwdlr (2979373) | about a year ago | (#44242459)

Please correct me if I am wrong on this - fans translate movie dialogue to something easily understood in a different language and load it up to a website where others can associate it with a purchased movie. Because more people can now understand the dialogue, more movies are sold. The industry, citing copyright infringement, raids the site and shuts them down. Now fewer people have the appetite to buy their movies because they do not understand what is being said. Good, sound business logic. Sounds like they are trying to do what the music industry did - disenfranchise its customer base and lose revenue in the process.

Derivative works (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242583)

Fansubs are derivative works. It may be illegal to put a derivative works into commercial use without the consent of the original copyright holder - e.g. Polish translation of Finnegans Wake spent some years on a shelf, because the Joyce estate sued everyone into submission until the copyright expired. On the other side a Polish funsub site napisy.org was raided and closed in 2010, but in May this year the case was dropped, AFAIR with phrases like 'fair use' and 'no commercial usage' in the air.
I'm pretty interesting what's how does the Swedish legal soup on this look like.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?