The War On Fan-Subtitles Comes To Australia in The Form Of Site-Blocking
from the block-party dept
One of the more curious fronts in the never ending copyright wars is the one launched against fan-made subtitles. The theory from the entertainment industry goes something like this: these subtitles allow pirates to download movies in foreign countries and then apply the subtitles to view them coherently, therefore it’s all copyright infringement. It’s a dumb argument on many levels, but chiefly because it’s inescapably true that the entertainment industry has done an absolutely terrible job of making sure it releases its own subtitled movies in these same countries and in these same languages. In other words, the entertainment industry isn’t going to serve you foreigners, and we’re not going to let anyone else serve you either. To date, much of this front of the war has been fought in Europe.
But now it’s poised to make landfall in Australia, where a site-blocking request lobbed by a group of entertainment industry players has, for the first time, included fansub sites.
Together the companies filed an application for the broadest-ever blocking injunctionat the Federal Court in Australia. If successful, it would compel Australia’s ISPs to block a record-setting 151 domains related to 77 ‘pirate’ sites.
The list of ISPs in the case is familiar. Telstra, Optus, Vocus, TPG and their subsidiaries are all named as respondents in the case with the addition of Vodafone, which was added after recently entering the fixed-line broadband market. What is notable about the list is the inclusion, for the first time, of sites such as Subscene, Subsmovies, YIFYSubtitles. As their names suggest, these platforms offer subtitles for the latest movies and TV shows, something that doesn’t sit well with any of the companies involved but particularly Madman Entertainment which specializes in Japanese anime.
Let’s be clear about what this represents. The entertainment industry wants entire websites blocked for helping viewers understand what is being said on in their own native languages. If that doesn’t smack of overreach, it’s hard to imagine what would. This isn’t to say that fansubs can’t be used in combination with pirated movies and shows. They sure as hell can, but that isn’t the only application. The other is that entertainment fans buy the products legitimately, rip them, and then apply the fansubs so they can enjoy what they bought. The fact that such a market even exists makes the obvious point that the entertainment industry is failing at giving customers what they want or, in this case, need in order to enjoy those products. And yet the end result here is bans on entire sites?
Fortunately, the judge overseeing all of this appears to be fairly sober on how big a shift this represents for site-blocking.
As a result, the ever precise Justice Nicholas told the parties to ensure that no stone is left unturned in preparing evidence for the Court.
“You better make sure your evidence in relation to that is particularly thorough,” the Judge said. “There’s some creep here occurring – I don’t say that critically… [but] it’s a new angle so I’ll need to look at that closely.”
That sure sounds like a judge telling the industry that it sure better have the goods if it expects the court to go along with any of this. That isn’t to say Nicholas can’t be convinced with a sub-par response to his request. Perhaps he will be. But from the outset it’s good to see Nicholas realize the importance of this shift and the industry’s creep into areas of site-blocking.
In the end, as is always the case, the bigger point is that attacking fansub sites is dumb. All the recent evidence seems to show that good legal alternatives are the recipe for stamping out concerns over piracy. Site-blocking those actually providing those alternatives, on the other hand, is not.
Filed Under: australia, censorship, copyright, fan subs, site blocking, subtitles
Comments on “The War On Fan-Subtitles Comes To Australia in The Form Of Site-Blocking”
Copyright gives you certain rights; being jerks to fans who love your copyrighted works but doesn’t understand the original language it’s in isn’t one of them. If you really want fansubs to go away, instead of blocking them, create official subtitles to sell with your official product. But that’s way more work than suing fansubs out of existence, right?
Re: Re:
Actually it is. Subtitles are a deritive work, and that means they are subject to the copyright of the original work. The rightsholder is perfectly within their right to mandate that only certain languages are catered to.
The law doesn’t care about morales or ethics. You want fanmade subtitles to be allowed? Get a representative to put it into a bill and pass it. Until then, it’s still illegal, and you will be sued for it if the rightsholder deems fit to.
Also, no I don’t care about "benefits to society." Copyright has been remade to be a profit maker first and foremost by the nations of the world. By definiton of the law, I don’t have to care about "society’s end of the bargain." The best part is the vast majority of people don’t care either. So the system’s here to stay. Have fun with your ranting, and anger. You’ve lost this round, and you’re nowhere close to winning the next one because you haven’t accepted your previous loss yet.
Re: Re: Re:
You might be correct under USA law, but I’d be very wary if you try to put that towards Australian Copyright Law. You know the law that is actually in play here under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) not whatever USA statute you desire.
In other words, though sweat of the brow to compile something from viewing and then transcribing is instantly a copyrighted work. It is NOT a work nor right right owned by the companies who own the film, instead it is one ONLY available to those who actually created the subtitles. This is what Nicholas J is extremely aware of and is concerned about.
Context and jurisdiction is everything.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, copyright holders can only push media pirates so far before they lash out and strike back. And I believe it’s only a matter of time before the copyright holders’ heavy-handed efforts against piracy explode right back in their faces.
Re: Re: Re:
” it’s still illegal”
in what countries?
“and you will be sued for it”
even without standing or juristiction
“I don’t care about “benefits to society.””
neither do many, but that is the human condition
“Copyright has been remade to be a profit maker first and foremost by the nations of the world”
…. LOL
“I don’t have to care about “society’s end of the bargain.””
and this is another one of many human flaws.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Treaties are important you know. Your benefits mean nothing to me if you refuse to give me mine. Before you think otherwise, you should remember that countries can get carte blanche from the WTO to violate US copyrights in reparations. If you want to ignore US copyrights, that’s fine. Just don’t expect the US to enforce yours.
How many times has Techdirt made articles about Perpetual Copyright? How many times has Techdirt pointed out the harm done to consumers, and the public in general, thru exessive copyright enforcement and privilege? How many times has the sole goal of copyright expansionists been increased profits? You’re delusional if you think that copyright is anything other than a profit maker for rightsholders. It may have had some benefit to the public in it’s beginnings, but as shown in her majesty’s court, that was considered a defect by those holding the rights from the start. It’s taken centuries, but the rightsholders have mostly won their fight on that front.
That would be any country with DMCA style laws. Assuming you didn’t "rip" the video by pointing a camcorder at a television, the source didn’t contain something like Cinavia, you translated the content yourself, and made the subtitle file that was used yourself. If you did not do this, then congratulations, you’re an infringer. Specifically of the ban on circumventing technological protection measures of a work.
See also, copyrights in other countries. Any major studio will apply for copyright protection in major markets around the world. If they don’t get the ruling they want in Australia, then all they have to do is establish jurisdiction in a country with more favorable laws. Hope he has been blocking all of the US IP blocks.
That’s the law for you. Again, don’t like it? get a representative to put the changes you want in a bill and pass it. Otherwise accept the laws of your land, and realize they don’t always work for your interest.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Any major studio will apply for copyright protection in major markets around the world.”?
What are you on about?
It’s like you are deliberately obfuscating the fact that this whole discussion is around a matter that is on foot IN AUSTRALIA!
Australian courts do not care about your US Centric world view. They will NOT go against the law of the land (Australia in this matter) and are NOT bound by treaties unless ratified in legislation.
Copyright protection for your education is automatic in Australia, there is no registration nor applying for ANY works.
AS for DMCA style infringement, that is not actually a copyright concern, but comes under other legislation and is NOT what the court here will look at.
“And yes the law is That’s the law for you. Again, don’t like it? get a representative to put the changes you want in a bill and pass”
So on one hand you are stating here and above that you should respect the law and apply it, though on the other hand you are saying only when it is convenient and protects one side? hmmm… Equity isn’t your strong suit is it..
I’d also like to point out that Treaties are only as important as long as they are enforced within the jurisdiction that signs them. Though if America wants to go into a trade war with Australia because we will not kowtow to her idiocy in regards to consumer protection (or lack thereof) or disregard of the rule of law unless it only protects America then I can guarantee Australia will not lose out since we really don’t buy too much from America .. Oh Wait there is already a trade war occurring due to your current ‘popular’ head of govt
Re: Re: Re:
[Citation needed]
Maybe that’s true where you live, but this is Australia, where courts have consistently slapped down overly-broad, American-style abuse by copyright holders for decades.
[Citation needed]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, trust me, if you saw what was going on on the southern border, you’d know the law doesn’t care about Morales.
Screw you for making my product better
It is like the industries hate when fans make their stuff better. How dare they!
Re: Screw you for making my product better
Not so much that as losing out on the control they obsess over more than money. Fansubs mean that people can get the product from another source(legal or not) and still watch it, which undercuts their control, if only a tiny bit.
Since they’re obsessed with control however even a tiny bit is far too much, and therefore must be crushed.
Subtitles are clearly derived works...
If a product providing subtitle requires the movie as an input before it is useful to end users, it’s called derived work. Creation of these derived works requires license from the copyright owners. If they truly wanted to provide this service, they would obtain those licenses.
Why is it that all these “useful” products are based on laziness of obtaining the licenses?
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You’re still not getting that mansion.
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:2 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:3 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You yourself admitted the product isn’t available in the market properly. Why the fuck does anyone have to give you anything?
Maybe pay for advertisements on three buses this time!
Re: Re: Re:4 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:5 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Can I use the work? If I can’t, why do I need to pay for it when I can’t use it? You don’t really think these things through, do you?
Re: Re: Re:3 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Even if you only received €0.1 per sale you would received north of 25 million, so why are have you not be able to that mansion yet? What are counting for the number of sales you quoted?
Re: Re: Re:4 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:5 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Which government has made that promise, with citation.
If you worked for a company, you get paid according to your contract, and if that did not include royalties or profit share, somebody else gets the mansion.
Re: Re: Re:6 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:7 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
If want to get a home that matches the displayed quality and popularity of your work, I know where there’s plenty of cardboard boxes for you to use.
Re: Re: Re:5 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“Now that they see the actual number”
You can state any number you wish. Do you have facts and sales receipts to back them up, along with a profit outcome? Doesn’t matter if you sold a ridiculous amount of crap if you weren’t making any profit. Even if true, if you’re as good a businessman as you appear to be here, I bet you never made a profit on a single sale.
“The mansion is a promise by the government”
You’ve never cited this claim, of course, only that Notch – who is not and never has been a representative of government – hit it bit and cashed in, saying others should be able to do it too.
Please, again, cite where the government has made this promise.
Re: Re: Re:6 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:7 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“Every copyrighted work on the planet is a prediction of what our future looks like. Notch’s prediction is just popular enough that it is guaranteed to come true.”
So, no, you cannot cite a single government representative who made this promise.
“In the copyright laws. “
Nowhere in there does it say “everyone gets a mansion”. You are lying, yet again.
“Obviously filthy pirates are not qualified for it.”
Nor are those who made worthless products.
Re: Re: Re:8 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:9 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“You just didnt read it carefully enough.”
No, I read it. It guarantees nobody a basic income or reward, only a temporary monopoly to have the chance to get it. Most people don’t.
“They couldnt figure out anything useful from electricity invention either.”
…and nobody got paid until they did do. The useful inventions get people paid (or not paid – see Tesla, as an example). People buying the things that used electricity in a useful way got paid. People who didn’t make things that were useful did not.
“I made a thing” does not guarantee you a single cent. Far better people than you have failed in business and in life.
“Basically you’re trying to evaluate the inventions too early.”
If in a couple of decades you’re anything more than a bitter deluded failure, I will retract my statements. Given that you don’t even appear to be able to describe your own product clearly, I somehow doubt it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:11 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“This temporary monopoly is designed to be significant enough that it is possible to get a reward large enough that the author can cover his expenses plus a mansion.”
Possible being the operative word. There’s still a very good chance you get the nothing you deserve.
“You’ll just change your mind about whether it’s useful, once you see my lightbulb.”
Well then, show us. All you’ve shown so far is a half attempt at displaying terrible images, for which we had to forcibly extract an explanation of what the software is meant to be doing, something you couldn’t even explain to the people watching your terrible bus ad.
I know that “oh, it’s far too advanced for you to understand it right now” seems to be your new go-to excuse for failure, but now that you’re trying to claim ridiculous sales numbers, lets see the evidence.
Re: Re: Re:12 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:13 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“so you didn’t click one of the images to discover the actual content?”
Oh, is that what you’re expected to do? You seem to have forgotten to mention that the site needs you to do that, either here or in the site itself.
(tries clicking image)
Oh great, the shitty image leads to a similarly shitty animation. I’m sure you’re proud of your code, but the page is horrendously bad, especially if it’s meant to be a storefront to entice people to buy something.
“well, you’re the one focusing on sales numbers”
Because you made a ridiculous claim about them. Where’s the proof?
“O’m sure lightbulbs had this exact same barrier to overcome.”
Not after 250 million of them had been sold. Where’s your proof of achieving this?
Re: Re: Re:14 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:15 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“Is that enough proof for you?”
Not really. What does he have to do with your shitty code and how does this prove you’ve sold over 250 million units?
I’m only asking you back up your own claims.
Re: Re: Re:16 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:17 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
The code is what you were claiming was sold. Where’s the evidence? In the last few months, you’ve gone from “I put a terrible ad on some buses and didn’t recoup my losses” to “I’ve sold over 250 million units containing my code”. Proof, let’s see it.
“It makes at least it plausible that there exists 250 million of something stacked somewhere in the corner in this story.”
The number of bullshit claims made by you in order to deflect away from your failure in these threads?
Re: Re: Re:18 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:19 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“Yes, what do you think programmers are selling?”
Depends on how they work and what they’re working on, under which licences, etc. Are they working for a fee from an employer, or releasing their own software under a contract?
Generally speaking, a competent coder is paid for his expertise under whichever remuneration contract he’s employed under.
But, all I’m asking you to do is back up your claimed sales figures, because I think you’re full of shit if it’s that website’s code you say you’ve sold. Especially since you were whining about a couple of grand wasted on bus ads not so long ago.
So, proof that you’re not just full of shit for once – where are these 250 million sales?
Re: Re: Re:20 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:21 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“The websites code is not copied many times since it’s just one copy that runs in the web server”
But, you claim to have sold 250 million units of it (or something else you’re not disclosing). Where is your evidence?
“You should have knoen this if you have any idea how web servers are working.”
Well, I’ve certainly heard of things like “caching” and “designing your website so that visitors know what it’s meant to be doing”.
Re: Re: Re:22 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:23 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Citation needed, especially after all your moaning about how your adverts failed.
Re: Re: Re:24 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Strange isn’t it? He did complain that he failed, but now he’s sold millions… but is still on here asking where his free mansion is. Almost as if he’s not 100% truthful about some part of this….
Re: Re: Re:23 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“already provided”
Really? You posted evidence of the sales figures? Could you provide that again, I missed have missed it among the chat about your atrocious salesfront.
“Mystery sells much better.”
Yeah, yeah, you failed to sell anything because your bus-led campaign failed (and you did tell us that it failed, remember). But, now you’re suddenly successful to the tune of millions of sales, you just had to stop people knowing what it was you were selling and the money rolled in!
Give us a break. I know it must be hard to have failed so spectacularly, especially when it takes people only 5 seconds to rip apart your supposed strategy. But, “I sold lots of things, I won’t show you any proof” is not a winning strategy for the guy who was saying “I didn’t get any return on my ads by I was promised free money” not so long ago.
Re: Re: Re:24 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:25 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“There might be something larger operation available for that purpose.”
Yes, the internet. What kind of moron tries local non-targeted advertising for something that people can’t get offline, and doesn’t bother to even show people what it is during the ads?
“It’s obvious that bus-ad in one city cannot sell the product to the whole europe.”
Yes, which is why we’ve been mercilessly mocking you for it when you complained that it didn’t work. What else have you done? For that matter, why are you trying to limit your marketplace to Europe?
Again, we’re just going on your claims, and now that you’re claiming an extraordinary turnaround, we’d like to see what it is before we congratulate you (if it’s real, of course).
Re: Re: Re:26 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
So let’s recap.
tp has a product for which he claims the following:
– He’s chosen to advertise it via a website with no presence other than him screaming about on Techdirt, and two buses in one European city, using a video on YouTube.
– He’s apparently been through processes and failures that require a return on investment of at least six million dollars.
– The product isn’t actually for sale to the mass market.
– 250 million copies are on computers, servers, systems, whatever.
How the fuck that translates to “you, as a member of the global public, no matter where you are on the planet or whether you pirated, bought, downloaded or have anything to do with my product, must now give me money to the point where I can buy my own six million dollar mansion, according to government laws” is anybody’s guess. He hasn’t sold anything, so give him money! Except he’s not, he’s actually sold a lot of them, so… give him money? The fuck?
Re: Re: Re:27 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:28 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“I’m just asking where my mansion is.”
Same place it’s always been – in fantasyland with your millions of sales and your superior coding ability.
Re: Re: Re:29 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:30 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“This is just ok. Since I’m a programmer, I know how to turn fantasyland stuff to useful realworld products.”‘
Good for you. The trick is, you have to create those and get people to buy them before you get your money. If you fail at those steps you still get nothing, no matter how much you think you deserve otherwise.
“But the fact remains that the government havent yet provided the required plans of what kind of mansion they are planning to create for me”
Nor will they, because they promised no such thing.
Re: Re: Re:31 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:32 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
So, you don’t want money, you just want the government to provide you free shit and attack those who are successfully creative because there’s better working open source versions of your poor output. Makes sense.
Re: Re: Re:33 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:34 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You are getting, as ever, less coherent and less logical as you continue. But, again, unless you explain what the hell you’re referring to with the 250 million units you claim to have sold, we won’t get anywhere.
I understand that English is probably your second language, but you seem to lose the ability to be coherent the more you talk in these threads.
Re: Re: Re:35 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:36 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“real number is around 250 million, “
…and all we’re asking you to do is prove that number.
“The 250 million number comes from the number of “phones” sold in europe”
So, you’re saying that your software is on every phone sold in Europe. Absolutely crap. Prove it, or your fantasy of what you’ve done is even larger than the free mansion you demand.
Re: Re: Re:37 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:38 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
OK, then, my immediate 2 reactions:
1. you’re full of shit, barring proof to the contrary
2. If not, is this why you’re so whiny and bitter? Let me guess, you did the work for hire and imagine you should have some kind of royalty deal, whereas you only got the standard upfront salary as agreed?
It’s one of the other, I think. Either you’re making stuff up to cover your failure in other areas, or you’re angry that you work only got paid as per the contract you agreed to and not a share of overall revenue.
If the latter, I feel for you but that’s how it works in the real world.
Re: Re: Re:39 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:40 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“This is required when you grow older.”
No, it’s really not.
“Well, the only reason why these 250million numbers came up was because you insisted on trying to find the number of customers we have”
Because you insisted my work had no value unless it can be counted in individual sales. Now that you insisted on an extremely high concrete number to stake your claim on, I’m asking for evidence, because it sounds like you are lying, given the quality of the work you’ve made public so far.
“The operation is more like trying to find a way to build one without using money at all.”
You really are a moron aren’t you?
Is this what you’ve been trying to get at all this time, that you think 3D printing advances will allow you to build a mansion, while somehow not requiring any costs for building materials, land, permits and all the other things that are required when you’re working with physical space?
What an absolute fool you are!
Re: Re: Re:41 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:42 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Yes the work of mine that you made up in your head seems to be inferior to the work of your own that doesn’t exist.
What a pathetic waste you are.
Re: Re: Re:43 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:44 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
So, no willingness to tell us anything about these millions of indispensable things you’ve sold? What a surprise.
Re: Re: Re:45 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:46 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Because your entire argument now rests on on you having some 250 million units of something, whereas I haven’t claimed any such thing.
Why are you so scared to show us the achievement you’re so proud of? Could it be that it doesn’t exist?
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Coherent arguments and ability to back up your own claims not being among them, it appears.
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
I don’t need to back up any claims because I’m not making any. You’re just desperate to avoid admitting that you’ve been lying again.
Go on, show us this fantastic work that’s sold millions of copies.
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You still haven’t grasped human interaction, have you? The question on the table is: where are these 250 million sales you claim to have? What I do or do not do is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly derived works
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly derived w
“The phones were sold to europe”
…and which part of it are you claiming ownership to. I was asking about your supposed work, not the idea that this many phones have sold. What did it have to do with you?
“Nope, you claimed quality problems in my work, so whatever you managed to create that is better quality is of interest”
Not really. I can tell you that a movie sucks even if I haven’t sat behind the camera. I’m only offering my subjective viewpoint, which needs nothing else other than my opinion.
You, on the other hand, made objective claims and they require evidence.
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly deriv
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clearly d
“The quality of the work is just good enough “
Which “work”. Unless you’re claiming ownership of everything on the phone, which specific part do you claim ownership that makes them so important to buy based on it? It must be something rather impressive, since you’re claiming that it’s a big part of why people bought the phones!
I’m only asking that you back up your bullshit claim with something resembling a description of what you are claiming to have done.
“See, the 2nd version is alot more fair than the first one.”
The 3rd version is even easier:
1) Random person makes wild claim
2) Sensible person asks for clarification / evidence
3) Random person provides evidence, thus proving his claim.
Why is step 3 so difficult for you? is it because you’re lying? In the absence of evidence or details, I have to assume that you’re desperate for attention having had the quality of the work you have presented so easily assessed as lacking.
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are clear
Re: Re: Re:47 Subtitles are c
I apologise for missing it in that case. Could you link to the relevant comment or repeat it here? I’d hate to be thinking of you as a liar when all I’ve done is miss your detailed explanation of which part of the 250 million sales you are taking personal credit for.
Surely a man with such resounding success won’t mind repeating his achievement here rather than just repeating a number?
Re: Re: Re:41 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:28 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
I have never claimed that I want money. I already have enough of it.
Then stop fucking asking me for it, jackass. Especially when I don’t have a purchased or pirated copy of your magical mystery product that isn’t even out on the market!
Re: Re: Re:29 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:22 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:23 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“This means there is that many copies of the software available in the world”
No, this means that – according to your claim – that over 250 million of them have changed hands for money. Sold. Not distributed, sold. Your words. Prove it.
There’s over 250 million unit of Apache web server out there, not one of them “sold” and I’ll be willing to be it has far more uses than your stuff.
“Basically the situation is more complicated than you can imagine.”
More like you’re making this shit up because you know you’re talking to the same community who mocked your outlandishly and inevitably stupid failure with the bus stunt, and hoping you can pretend you still made it somehow. Sorry due, no mansion for you. You have to earn it.
Re: Re: Re:24 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:25 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“If govt makes a promise, any “you have to earn it” is not cutting it.”
Unless you can cite the law that say “you get a mansion without earning it”, then is most certainly does. The only thing copyright has guaranteed is a limited legal monopoly, not a guarantee of a cent of income.
“What you’re basically saying is that piracy is ok, but when compensation is talked, your position is that it’s not required “at all”.”
No, I’m saying that piracy is inevitable, yet many greater men than you have been far more successful despite it. But, they didn’t lurk around moaning in web forums because their horrifically bad ad campaign failed.
“Sadly, you again missed the fact that we’ve been using this solution for over 40 years, since 250 million products simply isn’t possible without significant amount of automation.”
So, you’re trying to take credit for 40 years of AI innovation now? I call major bullshit. What a sad pathetic person you are, trying to take credit for the works of others and then demanding you be paid for it. That’s worse than piracy, it’s fraud.
Re: Re: Re:26 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:27 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Yeah… you’ve lost it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“Too bad the whole europe wanted the product since it sold over 250 million units.”
Ooooh, I’d love to evidence for that. Weren’t you the guy who was whining not so long ago because the horrendous bus campaign that was guaranteed never to work hadn’t recouped the costs. Now you’ve sold 250 million of something? Yeah, call me unconvinced until you prove otherwise.
“You’re actually trying to take away the mansion?”
The one in your broken little mind is safe since it never existed in the real world.
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
I’m not greedy
This is why you get funny votes.
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Again.. NO they do not require a licence..
Again.. This is NOT USA law being considered here (and treaties do not hold water either).
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Missed the point again?
No worries, you can have another crack at it next time.
Re: Re: Re:
Can you spot the one word that changes the entire meaning and intent of this sentence?
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
This is just basic principles of how money works in the world. You exchange money for a permission to do certain operations to your copyrighted works.
No one cares for your strange economic theories, though I think you should go read up on Posner and Locke.
This is about law, economics other than in formulation, has no bearing on it – especially once legislated. The only time it might have bearing is in a court of Equity.
Also watching a movie is NOT unlawful until a court decides otherwise on EACH instance. What part of this don’t you lot who claim to think everything is unlawful or ‘illegal’ and punishment or damages is pre-ordained. Also whether it was unlawful or not in first instance to watch is absolutely irrelevant for the new (derivative or not) work.
Re: Re: Re:2 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:3 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
I’m not concerned with whether or not a licence is needed or required, that’s an entirely separate conversation.
> Many of the activities are illegal, if you fail to obtain the license.
Not in Australia (again jurisdiction is highly relevant for this thread).
They might be unlawful, never illegal unless it is for high and exigent commercial purposes and then ONLY the Government can prosecute and the right holders are then victims and witnesses and must be very circumspect in what they say and when they say it or they will be found in contempt.
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Thus the correct solution is to refuse to create such works.
Okay. My correct solution is to refuse to pay you for a money which you yourself say isn’t even properly in the market.
Re: Re: Re:2 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Re: Re: Re:3 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
And I will continue to avoid paying you money. I’m glad we’ve come to some form of agreement.
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
In the US, at least one district court has said owners are legally obliged to create subtitles under the ADA. If you’re legally required to create something, you normally don’t receive copyright in it.
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Citation needed
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
I’m reasonably certain the first sentence is true — ADA may require creation of subtitles for the hearing impaired.
But it’s the government works that aren’t copyrightable. A legally compelled work would be a different issue.
And, the question is if I hold the copyright, and you translate it (for example, subtitles, especially in swahili) do you infringe? Note that the use is transformative, and in no sense substitutes for the original, in fact it probably increases demand for the original, so it’s a negative substitute. And the motive is often non-profit. It’s also a very small part of the original, words (in poor fidelity) for the soundtrack. So three of the four factors in the US say its fair use.
A more sensible bargain might be thus: Subtitles only infringe if they are already distributed with the movie/video in substantially similar form and language.
That is, if “Rock Horror Picture Show” is distributed with French subtitles, then fan-made subtitles infringe, provided they don’t fall under the “satire” exception…because satire is also fair use.
I know it’s been said before, but this is a form of free market research, but it simply breaks hollywood’s tradition of windowed geographic availability, which might have made sense when it was expensive to copy all those reels of celluloid at good quality. I suppose getting europe all excited about an american movie they can’t get might optimize profits, too..gotta remember Hollywood has been experiencing record growth!
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
“If a product providing subtitle requires the movie as an input before it is useful to end users ..”
You have inadvertently suggested a possible alternative here – produce a separate audio track with sync capabilities to play along side the properly purchased movie.
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Reading the article it appears that the subtitle providers have done even less than this: They’ve produced the digital track containing only the subtitles. They have distributed the original video or audio at all. Users acquire the original movie, presumably legally, then burn it to DVD and add the subtitle track so they can watch it with native language subtitles.
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Hmmm, are translations considered derivative works under Australian copyright law? Because if you strip out the discussion of whether any content from the original work is included in the fan-sub, you’re still left with what is essentially a translation of the dialogue. You get into the territory of the script’s copyright rather than the video recording’s copyright.
Re: Re: Re:2 Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Exactly…
The subtitle itself becomes a singular and unique copyrighted work at moment of creation in Australia. Transcripts of English, or translation to another language bear no difference.. they are both pure copyrighted items and stand apart from the work they were transcribed from.
Whether they then become subtitles due to placing them within a file or embedding within different medium (the copied Film) has no relevance on the works copyright status. And that is EXACTLY the creep Nicholas J is concerned about here. They are trying to expand the original matter. Our Civil Procedure Rules are very specific on why that cannot be done.
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Creating subtitles for a movie is like creating a mod for a video game.
You need to buy a copy of the original to make them, and people who to use them need to buy a copy of the original as well.
And neither need a license to make as their both fair use.
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Fansubbers don’t censor or change the original videos, the subs they provide are much higher quality than the official craptastic ones, they don’t host on infamously corrupt platforms like crunchyroll, they let us download videos instead of relying on a fickle app that malfunctions sometimes and blocks content after a few days, they use the fastest and most reliable distribution network in existence, and they don’t litigate against their fans.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
there goes the argument that content owners doesnt provide subtitles at all…
– I’m not going to accept low quality subtitles, full stop. If they can’t overcome that hurdle, they should be ignored.
so the operation is really illegal…
– Whether something is illegal or not does not matter to me. There are many laws that are unjust or immoral that should not be adhered to.
so you only accept the best warez in existence using the best technology in the world…
– I use steam for games because valve hasn’t been behaving badly enough, but if origin was the only alternative… I’d pirate everything.
so they leave that burden to mpaa? Are they lazy too?
– What burden, and who is lazy? The MPAA is a protectionist mafia for the legacy media companies. They are simple thugs, like gang members on street corners in bad neighborhoods. They should not exist and have no place in a properly functioning society.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“While examining what products someone uses, you cannot always detect why the person is a criminal”
You can not determine why, but you are sure they are a criminal .. interesting leap of guilty until proven innocent.
If your business model relies upon declaring your customers to be criminals then that business model is flawed.
Just because someone has assets of value, does not mean they obtained same illegally. It maybe highly likely but not a given.
Normal people … are you serious?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“best tech in the world is dangerous for the following reasons:
1) it’s going to be too expensive
2) only criminals can afford it — i.e. the product is stolen
3) thus only people who use it are criminals”
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read today.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Always accurate:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180703/16343340172/eu-parliaments-legislative-affairs-committee-is-now-misleading-members-parliament-effort-to-fundamentally-alter-internet.shtml#c983
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Invoking Poe’s law…can’t tell satire from the most extreme idiots!
My impression of US Law (about which I understand this does not concern) is that the current case law suggests subtitles not copyrightable based on their interaction with the ADA. This based on the district court decision in the Netflix case.
Is there an equivalent ADA Law in Australia, and can you obtain copyright on something you’re legally obliged to produce in Australia?
Re: Re:
How would copyright not apply to something you create even if you’re legally obligated to produce it? Citation needed.
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright applies to creative works. If you’re legally compelled to create something, it isn’t creative. Alternatively, you could argue that it being legally compelled means it was created by the government, which has limited ability to create copyright.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
WRONG! So so wrong.. if you have a legal obligation to do something, this does not and can not oust the legal and proprietary right that the created work is NOT copyrighted.. Nowhere does something that inane exist.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“If you’re legally compelled to create something, it isn’t creative.”
This is simply stupid.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, no. For example, if I enter enter into a legally binding contract with someone that says ‘I pay you $X, and in return you write/draw/compose something for me’, the one writing/drawing/composing something is still being creative unless I make all the creative choices for them(in which case I’m an idiot for paying someone when I did all the work).
Just because a legal obligation exists does not strip out the potential for creativity.
Re: Re:
Copyright in Australia instantly applies to any created works by “sweat of the brow”. Derivative works, that subtitles are not, are still instantly copyrighted to their respected creators.
We do not have a ‘registration’ system (it’s too convoluted and idiotic the US one). Our Equiv of ADA (and this is for your own ADA too) does not mean because you must, for specific purposes only dealing with govt works normally, create specific access points, mean that that created work is not copyrighted either. EVERYTHING is copyrighted at point of creation
Eliminate copyright.
Futility in action
While everyone else in here is arguing about copyright the futility of blocking goes on. Anyone who who wants the sub-title files, and is willing to put in the tiniest effort, will find a way.
Re: Futility in action
Agreed, copyright is getting nuttier and nuttier.
This is the internet, the world’s greatest copying machine, and I have a right to sue you for copying something as insubstantial as this post?? When you didn’t even notice it was there?? Oh, and my throwaway picture that I didn’t even have to register or tell you about the copyright on???
Assuming copyright is reasonable at all, I’d settle for a declaration that subtitles don’t infringe the original because they increase the market for it, even if they are a derived work. But we’ll be lucky if the judges can ignore the money being waved under their noses…
Proof...
> Could you link to the relevant comment or repeat it here?
In cronological view, comment number 72 in this thread.
Basically when you read that comment, you should figure out the following facts:
1) The organisation referred in the comment created millions of phones
2) The boss got a mansion + millions of bonus while apparently couldnt take credit of the work
3) It went viral because of apparent mistakes done by the boss
4) But the products mentioned was at that point already at the end of their lifecycle
5) There’s tons of people involved in the operation, including me.
Basically these facts you can get just by googling the boss name, and they form the necessary information needed in the proof.
Re: Proof...
I can Google his name all day long. It doesn’t tell me shit about what part of his success you’re claiming to be a part or or why you’re taking direct credit for those sales.
“5) There’s tons of people involved in the operation, including me.”
Let me guess. You were a low-level code monkey, but are somehow taking credit for everything that company sold because you might have written a couple of lines of code that are still in there. Now you’re bitter because when you left the company you didn’t organise some royalty share, and only got paid the salary you agreed to work for.
You are a moron, and a greedy, lazy one at that.
Re: Re: Proof...
Re: Re: Re: Proof...
Given that you refuse to answer the very simple question posed to you, I just have to presume what I have with the information provided – and none of what I can come up with is very flattering.
If you have a problem with this, provide the answer as to why you believe your work had anything to do with the number of device sales you claim.
Re: Re: Re:2 Proof...
Re: Re: Re:3 Proof...
“The code was all about user interface aspects of the device”
OK… Did you design it or just implement someone else’s design? Did you implement it alone or as part of a team? Has that code been changed over time since you implemented and stopped working on the project (I’m assuming you no longer do that given the way you talk here), and if so is that code still present on current models?
“Thus the number of sales means that the work was implemented perfectly”
No, it means it worked well enough that the device performed adequately. I know many people over the years who have hated some aspect of a user interface, or the whole thing entirely, but put up with it because of pricing, only needing access to a couple of features that did work OK, etc. Saying that the whole range sold purely on the interface is pretty dumb.
“The quality level required in that place is such that even single pixel in wrong colour would be immediately found by such large user base”
If your code was so shitty that you couldn’t even keep pixel colouring consistent, I’d hope that your QA team pick it up and management get rid of you before any phones made it to the production line. Past that point, the code has nothing to do with it – you’re depending on your hardware design team and factory build quality. Issue with screen implementation or a choice of a lower speed processor to help cut production costs could have made it look worse or act less responsively after you wrote it. Your code completely depended on their work.
You are actually taking credit for the work of many other people here, and claiming that your individual work was the only thing that really mattered. You are deluded.
Re: Re: Re:4 Proof...
Re: Re: Re:5 Proof...
It’s impressive actually. I point out how you’re a delusional idiot who takes pride in taking credit for other peoples’ work and think you are way more important than you actually are – and you still manage to twist it into bullshit about how you’re personally achieving something.
Re: Re: Re:6 Proof...
Re: Re: Re:7 Proof...
“That’s better position than what you have.”
I love the way you keep coming back with shit like that, given that you regularly demonstrate that you don’t know what I do.
“At least I claim to have done something”
…and your claims are grandiose, false and totally dependent on the work of other people. You claim to have done things that require many other people to do work for you first, and afterwards. You are a fraud and a liar.