5 ms·

Scripts are copyrighted. The dialog is just the script, so of course it's copyrighted. It doesn't matter how you sourced the script. If you thought crowd sourci

Scripts are copyrighted. The dialog is just the script, so of course it's copyrighted. It doesn't matter how you sourced the script. If you thought crowd sourcing dialog was legal then you were simply wrong, and I'm sure there was some level of interaction required where takedowns were issued before the police were willing to get involved. I'm not outraged, I just think the site owners were clueless. You can't invent your own laws or ignore existing ones no matter how passionate you may feel about your cause.

marknutter 13y ago
"It's the law" has never held much weight as an argument in my book. Why is it the law, and why has it been applied in this way?
- btipling 13y ago
  > "It's the law" has never held much weight as an argument in my book. It will when you're standing in a courtroom in front of a judge regardless of what's in your book. I'm not saying laws are always right, they clearly aren't, but to build a business on it and then be outraged when it gets shut down?
kzrdude 13y ago
Not everyone thinks that 'copyright' is a property right. It's just a copyright.
- narcissus 13y ago
  Totally agree. We give a company the 'right to copy', in exchange for them improving culture. If they don't provide decent subtitles, then in that particular area of culture, they have failed. So why do they deserve to keep the right we gave them in that particular area? To me it's so simple... You don't do the job properly? You no longer have the right we gave you and therefore we can do it ourselves.
AngrySkillzz 13y ago
This is one of those cases where the application of the law flagrantly offends general sensibility to the point that it is clear the law requires modification.
sk00byd00 13y ago
Scripts are copyrighted but the translated subtitles are never straight translations of scripts (as I have found out in recent years being English in a non-English country), there is a level of interpretation (using a similar phrase, or a different cultural reference, perhaps just converting imperial to metric). Then you have to also consider the fact that many of the subtitles included on DVDs and sometimes even theatrical releases (at least in Sweden and Norway) are very often lifted from online sources the movie companies attack (rather than them hiring actual translators for all the markets they wish to conquer). Finally... I might be wrong on this but what happened to fair use? There were cases in the 80's that cemented our standard of fair use. Humming a song on the street is fair use, providing translated derivative works when no alternative exists is fair use.
- petegrif 13y ago
  "...providing translated derivative works when no alternative exists is fair use." No it isn't. Any more than translating Harry Potter into a language for which there is no current translation constitutes fair use.
  - sk00byd00 13y ago
    Its a shame you didn't attempt to explain further, we could have both learned something. As it stands now, in certain respects, I disagree.
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
>"The dialog is just the script, so of course it's copyrighted. It doesn't matter how you sourced the script." // When you purchase a movie, or acquire rights to watch that movie you also acquire rights to consume the script, no? The movie is the script rendered in to an alternate form, visualised and audible (to must users). Is there not an argument that transforming the sound output in to an alternate consumable format, be that braille/sign/subtitles or an alternate language, is mere consumption. Is it right that if I translate a work - I've licensed - for a friend as we sit and watch it that I should be criminalised [it's generally a tort of course]. The point of copyright is after all to reward the creation of artistic works and benefit the public domain and stimulate the generation of culturally important works. Shouldn't the copyright we grant as the demos ensure that all have access to the [potentially] culturally significant creations that we're protecting.

marknutter 13y ago

"It's the law" has never held much weight as an argument in my book. Why is it the law, and why has it been applied in this way?

btipling 13y ago
> "It's the law" has never held much weight as an argument in my book. It will when you're standing in a courtroom in front of a judge regardless of what's in your book. I'm not saying laws are always right, they clearly aren't, but to build a business on it and then be outraged when it gets shut down?

kzrdude 13y ago

Not everyone thinks that 'copyright' is a property right. It's just a copyright.

narcissus 13y ago
Totally agree. We give a company the 'right to copy', in exchange for them improving culture. If they don't provide decent subtitles, then in that particular area of culture, they have failed. So why do they deserve to keep the right we gave them in that particular area? To me it's so simple... You don't do the job properly? You no longer have the right we gave you and therefore we can do it ourselves.

AngrySkillzz 13y ago

This is one of those cases where the application of the law flagrantly offends general sensibility to the point that it is clear the law requires modification.

sk00byd00 13y ago

Scripts are copyrighted but the translated subtitles are never straight translations of scripts (as I have found out in recent years being English in a non-English country), there is a level of interpretation (using a similar phrase, or a different cultural reference, perhaps just converting imperial to metric). Then you have to also consider the fact that many of the subtitles included on DVDs and sometimes even theatrical releases (at least in Sweden and Norway) are very often lifted from online sources the movie companies attack (rather than them hiring actual translators for all the markets they wish to conquer). Finally... I might be wrong on this but what happened to fair use? There were cases in the 80's that cemented our standard of fair use. Humming a song on the street is fair use, providing translated derivative works when no alternative exists is fair use.

petegrif 13y ago
"...providing translated derivative works when no alternative exists is fair use." No it isn't. Any more than translating Harry Potter into a language for which there is no current translation constitutes fair use.
- sk00byd00 13y ago
  Its a shame you didn't attempt to explain further, we could have both learned something. As it stands now, in certain respects, I disagree.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

>"The dialog is just the script, so of course it's copyrighted. It doesn't matter how you sourced the script." // When you purchase a movie, or acquire rights to watch that movie you also acquire rights to consume the script, no? The movie is the script rendered in to an alternate form, visualised and audible (to must users). Is there not an argument that transforming the sound output in to an alternate consumable format, be that braille/sign/subtitles or an alternate language, is mere consumption. Is it right that if I translate a work - I've licensed - for a friend as we sit and watch it that I should be criminalised [it's generally a tort of course]. The point of copyright is after all to reward the creation of artistic works and benefit the public domain and stimulate the generation of culturally important works. Shouldn't the copyright we grant as the demos ensure that all have access to the [potentially] culturally significant creations that we're protecting.