5 ms·

It's not: > No portion of this script may be performed, or reproduced by any means, or quoted, or published in any medium without prior written consent of SONY

It's not: > No portion of this script may be performed, or reproduced by any means, or quoted, or published in any medium without prior written consent of SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC. * 10202 West Washington Boulevard * Culver City, CA 90232 Cease & Desist Notice coming in 3...2...1

wanderingmind 4y ago
Just can be used to refine training of GPT3 model /s
jakzurr 4y ago
I suppose all those subtitle sites aren't exactly legal either, but I don't see them going anywhere.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Subtitles can be auto-generated. Screenplays, not really.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > Subtitles can be auto-generated. Is that legally any different from OCRing a copyrighted book? Or maybe running an audiobook through speech-to-text..
    - VanTheBrand 4y ago
      Well OCRing books (for book search) was found to be fair use because “book search” and “books” are in different markets. So to the extent it is like book search that could be in its favor. Your other example (text to speech and audio books) is significantly less transformative as audio books and books are basically the same or very related markets. (For example they are both sold in the same specialty stores)
- VanTheBrand 4y ago
  Subtitle files are arguably transformative and have a more benign character and purpose. They would have a significantly better fair use argument vs this. The purpose tends to either be to help the disabled or to assist non-native speakers in understanding the spoken dialogue track of the film. They also don’t directly compete with the underlying piece of copyrighted material (the screenplay) in the same market (publishing). A subtitle site could still easily end up on the losing end of a copyright suit but my point is this is far from an apples to apples comparison just because they both deal with text and audio/visual media.
grimgrin 4y ago
Though the collection will live on in infamy, on archive.org, or a tracker near you
- hombre_fatal 4y ago
  archive.org isn’t an illegal operation. You can even get other people’s websites scrubbed from it by pressuring them.

wanderingmind 4y ago

Just can be used to refine training of GPT3 model /s

jakzurr 4y ago

I suppose all those subtitle sites aren't exactly legal either, but I don't see them going anywhere.

ekianjo 4y ago
Subtitles can be auto-generated. Screenplays, not really.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Subtitles can be auto-generated. Is that legally any different from OCRing a copyrighted book? Or maybe running an audiobook through speech-to-text..
  - VanTheBrand 4y ago
    Well OCRing books (for book search) was found to be fair use because “book search” and “books” are in different markets. So to the extent it is like book search that could be in its favor. Your other example (text to speech and audio books) is significantly less transformative as audio books and books are basically the same or very related markets. (For example they are both sold in the same specialty stores)
VanTheBrand 4y ago
Subtitle files are arguably transformative and have a more benign character and purpose. They would have a significantly better fair use argument vs this. The purpose tends to either be to help the disabled or to assist non-native speakers in understanding the spoken dialogue track of the film. They also don’t directly compete with the underlying piece of copyrighted material (the screenplay) in the same market (publishing). A subtitle site could still easily end up on the losing end of a copyright suit but my point is this is far from an apples to apples comparison just because they both deal with text and audio/visual media.

grimgrin 4y ago

Though the collection will live on in infamy, on archive.org, or a tracker near you

hombre_fatal 4y ago
archive.org isn’t an illegal operation. You can even get other people’s websites scrubbed from it by pressuring them.