NetFlix Caught Stealing DivX Subtitles From Finnish Pirates 284
Posted
by
timothy
from the why-duplicate-effort? dept.
from the why-duplicate-effort? dept.
An anonymous reader writes with word that NetFlix recently opened its streaming service in Finland and was promptly caught stealing movie subtitles from a local DivX community site. How were they caught? NetFlix failed to remove references to the pirate site in the subtitles.
but they will waste no time (Score:5, Funny)
telling us how piracy is hurting their business and costing them money!
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Insightful)
The article summary is deliberately inflammatory. It's not "stealing" - it's exactly the sort of sharing which I assume a "pirate" would support. The original DivX site hasn't lost the use of these subtitles. Indeed, it's been given free advertising. The best thing it could do is issue a press release congratulating Netflix for acting in the spirit of cooperation and free dissemination. Everyone wins.
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Insightful)
The article summary is deliberately inflammatory. It's not "stealing" - it's exactly the sort of sharing which I assume a "pirate" would support. The original DivX site hasn't lost the use of these subtitles. Indeed, it's been given free advertising. The best thing it could do is issue a press release congratulating Netflix for acting in the spirit of cooperation and free dissemination. Everyone wins.
Except that they demand money.
Ripping of some ip and sharing it for free is different from ripping it of and selling it for profit.
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how that means it's stealing.
We already have a word for copying someone else's (Score:3)
It's called "Plagiarism", to use another's production without crediting the source.
Like with so much in life, just because we have computers doesn't mean unethical behavior is a new thing in the world.
Stay On Topic (Score:3)
IP piracy is different in that the infringer is not seeking to present the work as their own
And just what exactly do you think Netflix showing you subtitles created by someone else IS!!!!!!
That is exactly why I raised this term.
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it's hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, since Netflix opposes piracy. Instead of sending out s press release commending Netflix, they should ask Netflix to send out a press release saying that piracy is good because it's nothing more than what Netflix does themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, it's hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, since Netflix opposes piracy. Instead of sending out s press release commending Netflix, they should ask Netflix to send out a press release saying that piracy is good because it's nothing more than what Netflix does themselves.
Does Netflix oppose piracy? They don't produce anything, they only stream stuff that other people made, so it would seem to me piracy isn't a big concern of theirs. Getting decent prices from the studios would be there concern, other online streaming/DVD rentals would be their concern, but pirating? They probably care less.
Don't be an idiot (Score:3)
This is not Netflix policy, then have thousands of employes in many countries, and to get stuff subtitles they have hired many different companies. Presumably one of those companies had an idiot working for them, who did this. And most likely that person is now fired.
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright in the US is automatic, so they are taking copyrighted information.
Absent a specific licence for use, there is no licence. Posting on a public website does not constitute a licence; certainly not a commercial use licence. This means they are using it without permission.
So they are, in fact, pirating this information.
Incidently, in regards to your claim that Netflix not stealing anything: neither are the pirates.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't "stealing" because of some bogus legal theory. This isn't stealing because they paid for the works in question and as a matter of law in the US of A those works are required to come with subtitles or closed captions.
Re: (Score:3)
They paid for distribution rights to the movies, NOT the 3rd-party subtitles. If the law requires them to have subtitles that weren't included with the movies then it is their responsibility to create/legally acquire subtitles to which they have distribution rights to distribute with the movies - it does NOT magically grant them rights to a 3rd party's work.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they demand money.
They don't demand extra money for subtitles. And the subtitles are not copyrighted by the pirates in the first place. You can't copyright someone's work by just transcribing it.
Ripping of some ip and sharing it for free is different from ripping it of and selling it for profit.
Correct. Giving it away is worse. Damages for copyright infringement are not based on whether you profited from the infringement, but whether the copyright holder was deprived of profit. If you infringe and sell the copies, you are competing with the content owner and depriving them of some profit, but if you give the content a
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Informative)
Except that they demand money.
They don't demand extra money for subtitles. And the subtitles are not copyrighted by the pirates in the first place. You can't copyright someone's work by just transcribing it.
Incorrect. Under the Finnish copyright law, the translator has the copyright to the work (i.e. the translation). But since it's a derivative work, the author of the original work also holds copyrights. Unless the original copyright has lapsed, in which case the translator gets the sole copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure you're a troll, but it needs to be said. Once upon a time, when unicorns and fairies roamed the earth, there was a real possibility that copyright would lapse. Nowadays, the possibility is only theoretical, and will only happen when the copyright holders stop bribing the lawmakers.
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Interesting)
Your post uses words that deprive me of profit. Please send me a check for $200,000,000,000.00 right away. The flaw is that companies can demand outrageous sums. I would support copyright if the claimed losses were attaced to their TAXED income.
You claim that you lost 20 billion? Sounds great, the IRS will be wondering when you will be sending in your taxes on the value of that property.
this will solve the rampant BS that is copyright overnight. Scumbags wont sit on old works hoarding them if they are taxed every year they are not in the public domain.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between "lost income/profit" which those rights holders claim those huge amounts for (which normally would be taxed if actually realised), and "asset value" of the copyrighted work which should appear on their balance sheet already.
Re: (Score:2)
Trading your rip for quid pro quo access to other rips would be considered proffiting in most places.
Not that I agree with MPAA/RIAA methods for extracting "damages"...
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that they demand money. Ripping of some ip and sharing it for free is different from ripping it of and selling it for profit.
Bingo. Nail. Head. Bang. I'm a proud pirate (yarr!), and I love being able to give my friends access to movies and media they wouldn't otherwise be able to get on account of being too poor to afford it on their own. I don't charge (except postage and possibly the USB or SD Card cost), and I never will. It's counter to the spirit of it. Pirates recognize artists are entitled to compensation, and we tell people if they really like something to buy it or send money directly to the artist... and unsurprisingly a lot of my friends do just that. The fact is, most movies and TV episodes people only watch once or a couple of times. Take Hunger Games. I liked the movie, but I don't feel it has much replay value. So I'm not going to buy that. But NCIS? I psychotically love that show, and have picked up several disks on Bluray from pawn shops. It's something I'll be rewatching for years to come. Same with Battlestar Galactica or the new Batman trilogy. I've even sent money to the actors of Star Trek: TNG, because I love their work. And if I had more money, I'd probably go to concerts more than once in a blue moon.
Piracy doesn't mean not paying money -- for most of us, it's a way to stay in touch with our collective culture without breaking the bank. When everyone is talking about the latest Batman movie, and you're too broke to go see it in theatres, you're going to come to me and say "Hey, I wanna see what all the fuss is about." Well, okay then, here's a copy. And a few months later, I'm over at their house, and there on their shelf is a new Bluray or DVD of it. I certainly didn't give it to them, and they probably wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't exposed them to it ahead of time.
Piracy isn't anti-artist, it's very much pro-artist. It restores an element sadly lacking in today's market: Try before you buy. Netflix is the only thing that comes close, and you know what? I'm a pirate, and I have a Netflix. I love my Netflix -- it's cheap, and even with the DVD/bluray plans they have, I can get it faster than I can download it, at better quality, and it maintains my ratings so when I have a few extra bucks I can go back and look at my bucket list of things I wanna pickup the next time I'm out at the stores.
This is how most pirates operate: We love music and movies. We love them so much, we want to share them with others. But since we're not millionaires but working stiffs like you, we help people make sure that when they buy something, they're going to enjoy it. No buyer's remorse when you're a pirate: Every purchase will be something you love, and supporting an artist who deserves it on the merits of his/her work, not marketing buzz.
Re: (Score:3)
The article summary is deliberately inflammatory. It's not "stealing" - it's exactly the sort of sharing which I assume a "pirate" would support. The original DivX site hasn't lost the use of these subtitles. Indeed, it's been given free advertising. The best thing it could do is issue a press release congratulating Netflix for acting in the spirit of cooperation and free dissemination. Everyone wins.
Except that they demand money. Ripping of some ip and sharing it for free is different from ripping it of and selling it for profit.
But in this case, it's ripping off IP that was part of ripping off IP and the second rip-off-er licensed the content that was originally ripped off. The pirates can't copyright what it takes to pirate the work (even American fair-use or derivative work laws don't cover straight-out copying). Pirating lives in a grey space (technically illegal but dubious in market impact depending on the case-by-case basis) and I don't think they have a peg-leg to stand on in this circumstance.
But it still makes Netfli
Re: (Score:2)
The article summary is deliberately inflammatory. It's not "stealing" - it's exactly the sort of sharing which I assume a "pirate" would support. The original DivX site hasn't lost the use of these subtitles. Indeed, it's been given free advertising. The best thing it could do is issue a press release congratulating Netflix for acting in the spirit of cooperation and free dissemination. Everyone wins.
Of course it's not stealing - but it is according to NetFlix (when others do it).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I can see divxfinland uses the CC-NC-SA 3.0 license. This is does not allow commercial usage.
Re: (Score:2)
this surprises me. I would really expect pirate groups to stick to free and/or open principles.
I guess they're just another group of hypocrites, ugh.
note: NC is neither free or open in the sense of the word used in this context. In fact, it could be argued that making the subs themselves available on any site with ads is a license violation, It's almost impossible to safely distribute in any real way something that is marked NC.
Re: (Score:2)
How is releasing content under CC-NC-SA 3.0 license opposing free and/or open principles?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they don't comply with your expectations doesn't make them hypocrites. If DivX Finland doesn't copy the films for commercial purposes, using a non-commercial license is not inconsistent.
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:5, Informative)
that would probably violate a GNU license equivalent
No. GNU licenses have never been about restricting commercial use, only prohibitory use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But with GNU you have the right to modify and redistribute and I kinda doubt Netflix allows that to occur so if it were licensed under GNU they would be in violation.
Not only does netflix require that all shows they distributed be tried down with DRM, they even forbid the author from including a blurb at the start of the movie telling viewers were to get a DRM-free version. [ninapaley.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You have that backwards. Netflix is forced to have DRM on the content they stream or else they wouldn't be able to license it.
Re:but they will waste no time (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you, as a content creator, wish to license your content to Netflix DRM-free. As the GP's link shows, they won't let you do that.
Re: (Score:3)
So Netflix has a policy to stop side-channel sales and distribution? You mean you can't reach a new audience through Netflix and tell them to use a competing distribution channel?
When is the last time you saw a commercial for CNN on Fox News?! You havent?? - CRY FOWL!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is not the industry though.
netflix wants DRM on their streaming, as they aren't charging buy a movie/show prices and need your stuff to expire when you stop.paying.
netflix has a place in the world even without copyright law though, in fact a stronger place I imagine, they could still charge for their convenience, and their suggestions.
netflix is most likely going to get sunk by the industry in the next couple of years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think Netflix has done much whining about piracy. They don't produce much in the way of content.
Maybe they were taking hints from ubisoft (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe they were taking hints from Ubisoft: http://megagames.com/news/ubisoft-steals-reloaded-crack-fix-its-own-game [megagames.com]
From TFA (Score:5, Funny)
"Online TV giant Netflix was closed captions unauthorized use of his pants down..."
I predict "unauthorized use of his pants down" to be the new "not want".
Re: (Score:2)
It's because Slashdot stole most of the good Google translations and only the lousy ones remained in stock.
"Stealing" from Pirates (Score:2)
Google translate caught with his pants down (Score:5, Funny)
Online TV giant Netflix was closed captions unauthorized use of his pants down, when the Finnish users ...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No that is normal in Finland, we like to get around with our pants down for Google [theregister.co.uk].
Possibly NSFW.
Re:Google translate caught with his pants down (Score:5, Informative)
Keeping in line with illegal translations, I'll give you my own translation of the article from Ilta-Sanomat (since Google translation may have missed a couple of nuances):
Re: (Score:3)
Stealing subtitles? (Score:2)
And the people who wrote the subtitles stole them from the movie script whose rights Netflix licences. I fail to see what's the problem here, maybe someone who speaks Finnish can explain.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what I was thinking. Technically, the copyright owner owns the rights to derivative works. I don't see this as hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, Netflix owns very little content. If the studios did it, then OK, I see that as hypocrisy in a way. But people complaining that someone stole something from thieves? That's a different kind of special right there.
Re:Stealing subtitles? (Score:5, Informative)
That's what I was thinking. Technically, the copyright owner owns the rights to derivative works.
No, he does not. Because it involves the creative work of the translator. This translation is probably an infringing derivative work, and the original copyright owner could stop it being published, but could not claim it as his own property.
If I write a Spider-Man fanfic, Marvel cant just take it and publish it as their own. They might sue me, but they can't take my work.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was thinking. Technically, the copyright owner owns the rights to derivative works.
In the sense that you need their permission, yes.
But the original creator does not own all the rights - you will also need the permission of those that created the derivative.
You have to satisfy both of them to publish legally.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually the other way around, for the reason you note... The studios own the copyrights, so if you make an unauthorized derivative work, they could claim that as copyright owner, they have implied rights in that work too. Netflix doesn't own the content, but is just a licensee, so the studios would have to grant them a license to the implied third-party derivative work, which starts getting a little sticky.
No, they don't have any rights to unauthorized derivative works. What saves them in practice is that if you "steal" a movie from Netflix, and Netflix "steals" subtitles from you, you are not in a position to take them to court. (There _have_ been people calling the police because someone stole drugs from them, which is a bloody stupid thing to do. And I read about one case where the police successfully arrested both the thief, and the victim of the theft for drug possession).
Re: (Score:2)
Well obviously not, or there would be no way to tell.
I assume that they did their own translation, something that costs money (unless you know a translator who works for free) and is not a one to one relationship.
It's stealing royalties (Score:5, Insightful)
The people that should have made money from writing those subtitles and that probably have done so for Finnish Television or Cinema companies, have not been paid, nor has their product been used. That means that these people are deprived of royalties in favour of illegally obtained translations that have violated the copyright of the show in question.
Either that, or the whole model doesn't make sense, take your pick.
Not the first time (Score:3, Informative)
It has been shown that Netflix also used portuguese community generated subtitle files for its Brazilian site. Netflix used it with errors and all. I don't think that its illegal, technically... but IANAL.
Here is the source [http://blog.lancamentosnetflix.com.br/2012/09/netflix-baixando-legendas-da-internet.html] :(
Sorry, i don't know how to create the fancy links in the comment.
Re: (Score:3)
Use HTML:
text goes here [slashdot.org]
Or:
http://example.com/ [example.com]
Interesting, I wonder who's fault it is... (Score:3)
I mean I am sure the CEO of netflix did not give an order "hey, get pirated subtitles - I am sure they are professional quality and won't contain profanities etc that could get us in trouble".
So, somewhere in the chain of passing out the requirement for, I assume, low cost translation, some "bright mind" had this idea. It is very likely that even the actual translator paid to do the work thought he/she might save some time!
But in general, it would be a great thing for someone like NetFlix to hire a well known sub-release group for their translations, but I really don't see that happening...
Re: (Score:2)
So, somewhere in the chain of passing out the requirement for, I assume, low cost translation, some "bright mind" had this idea.
I suspect that they probably contract out the work, and are not going to care because they already went with the lowest bidder.
Re: (Score:2)
Foreign films' ratings are assigned weirdly sometimes. The rating could be carried over from the original culture, but contain elements that are appropriate in the importing culture, or the wrong rating could be applied due to artistic styles that in the importing culture are used to indicate appropriateness for age groups that it wasn't intended for.
There are lots of ways it can go such that the language in the translation might not match up with the rating, and pirate subbers don't have any motivation to
It is only a crime ... (Score:5, Insightful)
hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)
Stealing? How? Were the pirates deprived of the subtitles? The Slashtard hypocritical use of "stealing" then whining when the "MAFIAA" uses it the same way is hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
It's stealing by the standards of the people who did the stealing.
It's not hypocritical to say
1) it's not stealing but
2) it's what you call stealing
Copying != Stealing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they did:
How were they caught? NetFlix failed to remove references to the pirate site in the subtitles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the method of getting caught was because they accidentally were giving attribution...
getting caught != attribution but attribution == getting caught
Re: (Score:2)
But they did not get credit for their work. The correct term here is plagiarize.
Actually, the pirates did (inadvertently) get credited for their work. The summary says "Netflix failed to remove references to the pirate site". I'd say that counts as getting credit for their work.
Besides, it's kind of a weird paradox to say that NetFlix plagarized the pirates. It's a bit like - if I gave a speech in public, then someone writes down my words, and then I copy-and-pasted the text - now I'm guilty of plagarizing the textual version of the speech I originally wrote. Generally speaking,
Amazing (Score:3)
How is this stealing even in the loosest sense? (Score:2)
Finnish perspective (Score:5, Informative)
A few comments from someone who lives in Finland.
First, Netflix reacted by posting a note saying it was sorry for the trouble (the exact wording changed a time or two). It has also removed those programs where the DivX Finland subtitles were used. Or said that they will do so, I am not a subscriber, so I am not able to check.
The representative of DivX Finland is just feeling amused, although he did say "well they could've asked for permission..." (this from TFA) - there is no outrage there.
Apparently Netflix buys their subtitles from Broadcast Text International, who in turn buys them from a multitude of sources, including a number of freelancers. Probably one of those sub-contractors just got them from the easiest location.
According to a blog post [blogspot.fi] (in Finnish) from the website av-kaantajat.fi (video subtitler's site), Netflix is getting their subtitles with super-tight schedules and expecting to get 1,5h worth of subtitled programs per day, whereas to do this properly it would usually take a week.
From the same blog post, in an interview with the Netflix subtitling chief Neil Hunt, he said outright that he's not interested in quality. So apparently the subtitling for them is just a feature checkbox that needs to be ticked off, with minimum cost and without other considerations.
Now for some background. At the same time as this has happend, the major Finnish TV media house MTV3 has recently in September outsourced all of it subtitling and translations to the same Broadcast Text International. MTV3 used to employ more than a hundred translators in-house. The difference is that BTI is offering to pay freelance translators to what amounts to less than a third of the income from a monthly salary.
The translators have been taking quality seriously, and now with these changes the quality is expected to go down a lot. While this saves money for the media companies, there is an argument that there are subtle effects on the population. For example, many Finnish children and youths start to learn to read from subtitles, and some also start to learn the English language from English programs with Finnish subtitles. Another point was that poor subtitling may make the whole movie worse, without the viewer realising that the source of poor dialogue is not in the movie itself, but just in the translations for the subtitles.
Netflix's approach to "quantity over quality" is just another move in the same direction, and as such, worrisome. It's also not a surprise that when paid very little and expected to deliver a lot, someone would resort to the easiest approach. Also, given Netflix's attitude, I'm not surprised if they don't have any quality control of their own for the subtitles which is why something like this would pass through.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The above was written by me. Ah, didn't notice I was logged out, didn't mean to post anonymously. Not that it matters.
Re:Finnish perspective (Score:4)
One week for 1.5h hours of subtitles?
If you were fluent in multiple languages and had ever tried to translate literature, you'd know that the process is surprisingly slow if you do a good job. Word-for-word is much quicker, but trying to capture, as much as possible, nuances of connotation and tone is hard work. I've only done it for the printed word, not audio, so I don't have any direct numbers, but a week for 1.5 hours does not sound out of line.
Re:Finnish perspective (Score:4, Informative)
I have had the pleasure of doing foreign (Dutch) captioning/subtitles for an English movie - and a week for 1.5 hours is quite reasonable.
As you mention, the problem is not so much in just word-for-word translation (although that can be challenging as well - not all words translate well. A favorite of mine is 'siblings'. There's no such word in Dutch. We just say 'brothers and sisters'.
But now that sentence is a lot longer. Does it still fit the area available for captioning? If it doesn't, does it need to be re-timed to fit the video? Do we start it a fraction of a second sooner? Make a choice to cut some words elsewhere?
Titles are also challenging. The WHO (World Health Organization), for example, is not referenced as the WHO in Dutch. It's WGO. Nobody is going to tell you that, though - you're going to have to do the research and find out if the local language does indeed have a localized term.. and whether that is official or just in common use.
Jokes involving wordplay are also a good one. Good luck translating that. Odds are you'll just have to drop the joke because the language being translated to has no similar wordplay to fit the situation and trying to shoehorn it in will just make the reader think the subtitle was awkward.
Proper subtitling is hard. As much as I think it's great that the community add subtitles for 'pirated' movies where no official subtitle is available, the quality is often appalling. Not that official subtitles are always perfect, but when you get somebody subtitling who only barely understands English in the first place and fails to grasp context entirely, you get things like Data from Star Trek happily being translated to 'gegevens'.. until the translator realizes it's a proper name and then switches to Data, but leaving the earlier mistakes in place.
Needed: One Or More Starving Lawyers (Score:2)
This might be a heaven-sent opportunity to force the copyright Nazis into court on the OTHER side. The RIAA is already involved in a lawsuit intended to make sharing one's Netflix password illegal. It seems to me that dragging Netflix into court for this instance of piracy might also force the RIAA or one of its sister groups into court, and get them involved in a nice, bloody dust-up with people who can fight back.
If nothing else, it should create some case law in Finland that might apply more widely
Not Stealing. Not infringement. (Score:2)
haha... (Score:3)
...the subtitles also explicitly prohibit the use of same for commercial purposes! Double whammy!
You can see this on "The Cape" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:subtiles (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Fn idiot. Why the hell do you end with an elipse???
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
thought it said subtitties
Re:subtiles (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't have stolen the subtiles if the pirates kept them encryped.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, it's not stealing because the DivX community still have them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA still doesn't apply in Finland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the DMCA has force in Finland, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's like saying companies are scum for making money off of linux.
Next time, read less comments and put more energy into comprehending those comments.
Re: (Score:3)
And I suggest you follow your own advice and try to put aside enough of your own stupidity to at least try to comprehend what you are reading. Not everything which is given freely is given freely unconditionally.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right about the last part, not everything given away freely is given unconditionally. If you actually read the website, the only thing they had to do to comply with their conditions was to NOT remove the website name, which is exactly what they did.
I do take my own advice, now you should try it. I know it's anathema to /. culture to actually read what you're talking about, but maybe you shou
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to charge extra for the subtitles to benefit from them financially. For example, if someone sees that an English movie is available with subtitles in their language, they would be more likely to spend the money than if those subtitles weren't available. Careful calling people idiots.
Re:Arrrrgg...... (Score:5, Funny)
They watch Arrrr-rated movies
Re: (Score:2)
Hang them from the yardarm by their lutefisks.
s/lutefisks/lipeäkalaa
It was in Finland, not Norway...
Whatever you call it, lipeäkala or lutefisk is merely nasty: fish turned into mucus. No worse than mämmi, and utterly nowhere nearly as disgusting as surströmming (a win for Sweden over both Norway and Finland)...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hang them from the yardarm by their lutefisks.
Well, if I was netflix I would just say that the the credits were left there *intentionally*, i.e. they didn't want to remove the author's signature.
But the summary says this: "How were they caught? NetFlix failed to remove references to the pirate site in the subtitles", i.e. the clever thing to do but have been to just remove the credits and be done it with. What would we be saying if this was code instead?
Also, did they just take a transcript or a translation? Not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Commenting to undo accidental negative moderation, your post is actualy quite insightful.
I don't realy see any problem here. The subtitle community is creating the subtitles for the pirate versions of the movies in the first place and they are making them available for free on the internet.. What's wrong with netflix taking their subtitles, leaving atribution in them and using them in their service? (Considering they checked the quality of the subtitles first. Fan-made subtitles often have lots of errors in
Re:Fair enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
The pirates are stealing from them (from the whole industry), so what's wrong with stealing a little from pirates?
Well, apart from the fact that it's not stealing, it's unlicensed copying, nothing.
I guess these pirates can see how it feels now.
Probably: great; I would be laughing like hell if I had done this and Netflix took my subtitles.
However, you are completely missing the point here. There are some of us who think it's okay to "pirate" and do so. There are others, like myself, that feel that unlicensed copying should be allowed in many more circumstances but don't feel like breaking the law. Until now there's been a third group which is benefitting from the laws, but was following them. Finally there's been group, such as congressmen's children, which are breaking the law because they can get away with it.
What we are seeing now is that in fact, there's no third group. The RIAA "pirates" music for their ads. The big media distribution firms demand adverts on other people's YouTube videos because of some real or false positive fair rights use of their material. The media distribution companies, like Netflix, are completely happy to "steal" material from anywhere they feel like. These people do things that, if you did them, would end you up in jail or paying hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines [pcworld.com]. They pay nothing and rarely even apologise.
This is all about the Amercan corporate royalty and their "Droit de Seigneur [snopes.com]" with your ideas, privacy and creations. This is not news because the copying is immoral; it is news because, it's yet another slip of the front and makes it 100% clear that you too are plebs [independent.co.uk] and the only thing wrong is letting you know it.
Re: (Score:3)
Millions of people copy stuff and don't end up in jail or pay fines. You have to be sued for that, and nobody sued Netflix.
Re: (Score:3)
Unauthorized use of his pants down?
And that's why Netflix didn't just use Google translate to make their own subtitles -- I've done that when I had no alternative, and while you can follow what's happening, obviously idioms are a problem, you get lots of wacky stuff like that..
Re: (Score:2)
No, the translators own copyright over the subtitles too; Netflix would need a license from them as well.
Re:Small Market (Score:4, Informative)
Finnish is not a Scandinavian language.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't think there would be a big market for movies subtitled in Finnish - even in Finland I think most people can understand other languages (like English, or French, or German or the other Scandinavian languages)
Nearly all foreign TV shows and movies which are shown on Finnish TV channels are subtitled in Finnish – that’s the norm here. (Dubbing is normally never used here except for the content intended for kids under reading age. Also, the narrated sequences in some documentaries are sometimes re-narrated in Finnish whereas their on-screen dialogue remains subtitled. But those are pretty much the only exceptions.)
The same practices go for actual movies seen in a movie theater, and the shows and movies