Netflix To Try Crowdsourcing Subtitles; Will It Get Sued For Infringement?
from the rock-and-a-copyright-law dept
Before getting into the details of this new story, let me bring up a pair of recent Techdirt stories as background. First, there's the story of Netflix being told that not having closed captioning on its streaming movies means it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. As we noted at the time, this raised interesting copyright questions, considering that Netflix may not be legally allowed to put captions on videos. A few days before that, we had written about a student who ran a site that provided crowdsourced downloadable subtitle files for TV and movies, and had been found guilty of copyright infringement.Knowing both those things, isn't it interesting that Netflix is now experimenting with crowdsourcing captioning/subtitles for films and TV shows? Perhaps it figures that having lost that first legal fight, it should lean in the other direction and see if it gets sued there as well. Either way, it seems like it opens up some pretty serious copyright questions. While some of us think that providing captions/subtitles should be pretty clear fair use, others (obviously) disagree. And, when it's an operation like Netflix -- which is obviously a commercial entity -- you have to wonder if it's going to get sued...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, crowdsourcing, subtitles
Companies: netflix
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Damned if you, Damned if you don't
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned if you, Damned if you don't
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned if you, Damned if you don't
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned if you, Damned if you don't
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damned if you, Damned if you don't
Or maybe I did to REALLY state my point.
Nope just an accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damned if you, Damned if you don't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damned if you, Damned if you don't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damned if you, Damned if you don't
Time out errors indicate the server reply for some reason was unable to reach you, which means in most cases it got dropped along the way somewhere and of course when the server fails to respond at all.
Every time this happens to me I get paranoid about censorship and intrusive monitoring which are the main causes of such glitches(i.e. replies getting dropped).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damned if you, Damned if you don't
anyway, as an anarchist this is kinda my inter point, giving a small set of people the right to screw over whoever they feel like, is exactly what it sounds like no matter what if's and but's u write into the "social contract" the state loves writing hypocritical laws and there is no way to stop them from doing so but not letting anyone get the "only legit" use of force on others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, I repeat the question, oh holy Mike: How the hell could it be fair use? Or are you just going to label eveything possible "fair use" and when a court case comes down on your side you will post up a dozen "told you so" posts on here and harp about the expanding fair use universe?
Please, explain it to us mere serfs in simple terms we can understand - and cite your examples in law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd think COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW in regards to paid-for content would be fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Netflix sues every studio that provides them with movies that DON'T have subtitles for selling them illegal material.
There's GOTTA be a way to make the studios liable for this, since they're the ones saying that you can't just do subtitles yourself. If you gotta have subtitles to be a legal product, then why are the studios allowed to provide the film without them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is required by law to provide subtitles which means that it is obviously a capital offense to add subtitles to a movie if you are not Bono or Lars Ulrich.
The internet is a passing sensation, soon enough TV will be back to its glory days.
Kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sauce for the goose.
No. It's not really "fair use". That's the wrong approach to take with this subject. It's really just a part of the original product that's supposed to be there as a matter of law.
The almighty content owners are breaking the law.
They are flagrantly disregarding the ADA but you don't care about any laws but copyright or anyone besides content owners. According to you, the rights of the rest of us don't matter.
The fact that no other laws apply is just consistent with the rest of your rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I only had to read this far to tell you don't know what you're talking about. See if you can work out why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Paul, stop just trying to contradict and pick. Discuss, don't be a jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Subtitles:Now the script:
You'll notice that the subtites offer absolutely no clues as to who is speaking or what is going on (with the exception of some timing info), whereas the script hasn't even gotten to a single spoken line yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
FUCK ME, are you guys that dense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's really an idiocy: the words are being transmitted to the audience via sound waves but just because you are transmitting them via photons in the form of a subtitle in the screen then it's fucking infringing? Have you stopped to think about how insane is this?
I guess it's the length of the cord. I mean, the wave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks, but no, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would be good to know if Netflix include sound descriptions for deaf people too, in relation to usefulness of the subs for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No they don't. I watch movies with subtitles in Portuguese but I understand English easily and the only thing that changes are the sentences that don't have a literal translation like idiomatic expressions. There's far enough time to put every single word said in the subtitles.
Unless you are watching Puni Puni Poemi. Kobayashi speaks insanely fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they do. Often even with English subs like in Monk, Scrubs, Futurama:
Spoken: As new employees, I'd like your opinion on our commercial...
Sub: As new employees, give your opinion on our commercial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an English-speaking USian, I often watch Netflix with English subtitles turned on, and can attest to the truth of this.
Not only that, but often it's clear that the subtitles were created by somebody listening to the show rather than transcribing from a script. The tipoff is when I see "(unintelligible)" for understandable dialog, or when homophones are mistakenly used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that I doubt what you're saying, though. Sometimes when an old movie is closed-captioned (a form of subtitling) on TV you can tell someone is actually attempting to caption it live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, ignoring your idiotic insults, your first comment said "the words of the script" are the same as the subtitles. This - to anybody who's actually read subtitles - is wrong. Quite often, for reasons of readability, brevity and the like, the subtitles on screen may not be the same as the words spoken in the film. The original script will also differ due to improvisation on set, editing and so forth, and will contain far more than just the words spoken by the characters. You can't download a subtitle file and use it as a replacement for the film. You'd struggle to follow the whole of Glengarry Glen Ross from the subtitles words alone, let alone the average blockbuster.
So, no, you were wrong and trying to mock me doesn't change reality.
You can't even get this simply concept correct, and yet you expect the rest of us to believe you when arguing more complicated issues? Please. That's not even going into the more obvious stupid points here, such as the fact that absolutely nobody would download a subtitle file instead of watching a film, and there's no logical reason why such a file from the DVD would not be supplied to Netflix in the first place.
But, go ahead, be a dickhead and see how many opinions you can sway by lying, distorting and acting like a jackass. If it's greater than zero, I'll give you a cookie like the 6 year old you try to imitate during these arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to paint yourself into a corner.
CC == script? Really? Must have never had an English Lit class in your life ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Four factor test:
* The purpose and character of the use
It is used to enhance the value of the original, authorized work, not as a substitute. It is part of a commercial endeavor as you noted, but being commercial does not mean fair use does not apply.
* The nature of the copyrighted work
One of the considerations for this factor is if dissemination of the work "benefits the public." Given the nature of the ruling on the ADA and the fact that this would help the hearing impaired, we can check off that factor as well.
* The amount and substantiality of the work
The text is just a part of the overall movie, and not necessarily a key part.
* The effect of use on the market
Zilch. Putting the subtitles on it will not harm the market for the movie itself (quite the contrary, it likely adds to the market). Nor does it hurt the market for the script. No one buys the script because the subtitles aren't available.
Of course, as with any fair use decision, judges can make wacky decisions, but I think there's a strong case to be made that subtitles hit on all four factors (and you don't even need to win all four factors).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The text is just a part of the overall movie, and not necessarily a key part."
You are suggesting that what the characters say in the movie isn't a key part of the movie? Wow.
"Putting the subtitles on it will not harm the market for the movie itself "
Not directly, but it usurps the right holder's position to do this work and provide this with their product.
I would say that you would be LUCKY to get 2 out of 4 factors here, especially considering the ADA decision is not directed at Netflix or any other retail seller / lender of movies. It's a poor justification for "fair use".
Now, on the other side, if Netflix has subtitles but other sellers / lenders do not, have they gained a commercial benefit from this action? That might actually hurt the market, making it harder for others to sell or lend their copies, and perhaps causing a decrease in sales.
So yeah, I can see commercial harm possible here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are a retard. It is binding, judicially binding. It's about two laws in conflict and yes it can be fair use.
and at any rate is for the studios to fix, not a distributor.
Except that your bosses aren't interested in fixing anything so far. The solution to their woes have been pointed ad nauseam.
You are suggesting that what the characters say in the movie isn't a key part of the movie? Wow.
No, you idiot. He's saying that the written subtitles are just part of the movie. You know, the actors won't suddenly go mute and the dialogs won't vanish if you add or strip subtitles. God you are a moron.
Not directly, but it usurps the right holder's position to do this work and provide this with their product.
Yes because they won't spend a penny if Netflix does the job so it's harming them financially. But I get your point, you want to make Netflix pay yet another type of license. Greedy moronic bastard.
I would say that you would be LUCKY to get 2 out of 4 factors here, especially considering the ADA decision is not directed at Netflix or any other retail seller / lender of movies.
Reading comprehension fail. As always.
That might actually hurt the market, making it harder for others to sell or lend their copies, and perhaps causing a decrease in sales.
Hint: there's demand for that. Offer that service. But your damned MAFIAA refuses to add value to the costumer. Hint2: if it's fair use for them to crowdsource subtitles and use then it is for you too. And honestly, fansubers do a better job than you.
So yeah, I can see commercial harm possible here.
I bet you also see green leprechauns, dead ppl and unicorns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did the ADA order Netflix to put subtitles? Did they specifically allow them to ignore copyright and do it? Nope. What is retarded is making an assumption that just isn't there.
"No, you idiot. He's saying that the written subtitles are just part of the movie. You know, the actors won't suddenly go mute and the dialogs won't vanish if you add or strip subtitles. God you are a moron."
Me, a moron? Are you kidding? If you took those subtitles and made a book out of them do you think you would be violating copyright? Netflix has the rights to the movie AS PROVIDED - can you show me where they licensed the script for subtitles?
"But your damned MAFIAA refuses"
Ahh, I was almost treating you like a smart guy, turns out you are just another Techdirt jackass with your head so far up your ass you can't even smell it when you fart. Too bad.
Next time let Mike answer, you are too much of a jackass to bother with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is indeed a key part of the movie, and the subtitles cover the length of the movie, not just some excerpt. On the other hand, there are very few movies where it could stand alone and be worth reading with no context. Not that anyone is trying to MAKE it stand alone.
"Not directly, but it usurps the right holder's position to do this work and provide this with their product."
Except the producers aren't doing this, which is the problem. If they want to include subtitles I'm sure Netflix would be happy to use them instead of making their own. And I'm sure it would be extremely illegal under the ADA to attempt to charge more for including subtitles, so I don't think you could argue that this would be a potential revenue stream.
"I would say that you would be LUCKY to get 2 out of 4 factors here"
But it's not just the number of factors, it's the strength of them. One factor can override the others if it's strong enough. I think that once the judge got to "The purpose and character of the use" and saw that the purpose was to help deaf people who were viewing a movie that had been paid for, and/or that the purpose was to COMPLY WITH THE LAW, that would be enough, and the other factors would be practically ignored. Especially when the other side couldn't point to any actual damages resulting from the so-called infringement.
"Now, on the other side, if Netflix has subtitles but other sellers / lenders do not, have they gained a commercial benefit from this action? That might actually hurt the market, making it harder for others to sell or lend their copies, and perhaps causing a decrease in sales."
Except Netflix could not claim copyright on the subtitles - since they soley consist of dialougue from the movie, the copyright on them would still be with whoever has the movie copyright. Meaning any other seller/lender could use Netflix's subtitles in the same way (not to mention that they could just do the work and make the subtitles themselves.)
Anyway. Since "what the characters say in the movie" is "a key part of the movie", it should be legal to show the captions with the movie. You're just showing in a different way what's alredy happening on the screen. What's next, they're going to claim stereo speakers are infringing because the audio signal is split into 2 "copies" when someone listens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I imagine the deaf public would disagree with you. The benefit to them is quite large. Do they simply not matter to you?
"...and at any rate is for the studios to fix, not a distributor."
You're correct, but they're not. So someone else is stepping in to do their job for them, at no cost to the them.
"Not directly, but it usurps the right holder's position to do this work and provide this with their product. "
Not it doesn't. They are still entirely able to provide their own service. I can't see how they are restricted in any way. In fact if they did, others wouldn't have to make the effort instead.
"Now, on the other side, if Netflix has subtitles but other sellers / lenders do not, have they gained a commercial benefit from this action? That might actually hurt the market, making it harder for others to sell or lend their copies, and perhaps causing a decrease in sales."
Jebbers, did need a brain injury to come up with a backwards logic like that? Making a product more useful, more desirable, more helpful, causes less people to buy it? In what universe has that ever happened?!
That has got to be the weakest, most pathetic attempt to defend ridiculous copyright restrictions I've ever read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember, if the court orders you to clean up your yard, it doesn't mean that I suddenly get the right to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
God. You are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alphabet Soup
If you are using any similar product, you've already got the caption data. You can create a better experience in this regard yourself. You can just use the readily available raw data and associated tools.
This all ties back to the ADA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alphabet Soup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems counter-intuitive for them to take their funds and throw them at congress (aka lobbing, as in lobbing money at politicians...)
If only we could set it up so that it was large containers of pennies being rained down from an orbital drop with precision.... It would only take about $100,000 in pennies to fix our problem in DC with proper targeting...
Pennies falling from sufficiently high orbit and blanketing the Pentagon, White House, and most of the rest of DC (there's not much real productivity going on there anyway) would pretty much obliterate everything.
Perhaps we could crowd fund this.... everyone pitch in a penny that you would like to "deliver" to your favorite congress critter... they want our money, sure HERE you go...
/sarcasm for those who may think I'm just a delusional conspiracy theorist designing 'creative' political contribution methods...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Guess I'll just go back to making tinfoil hats :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*fires pennies from space targeting white house, forgets to adjust for the earth's rotation and hits Rush Limbaugh's house instead*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Sorry, you can't show out movies anymore because they aren't subtitled/captioned (because doing so is a violation of the law, but not doing so is also a violation of the law)... Although, come to think about it, we do happen to have this handy captioning license you can purchase...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This whole debate is retarded
And hey, if you don't provide it, we WILL get it from somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would hope that Netflix, Amazon, etc could put them in their place and hopefully get even more licenses from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.
Basically, Movie production companies (Paramount, MGM, Fox) were limiting distribution to third party theatres and controlled both distribution and production, so it created a monopoly for itself.
If they do the same with subtitles, this imho could come back to bite them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kafka anyone?
Er, not really. It may be Netflix is trying to force the issue by bringing the Kafkaesqueness (or Catch-22 if you will) of the whole situation to the fore. "Hey, we were told it's illegal not to have subtitles, now we're told it's illegal to have subtitles -- some equity please your honor..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does That AC have a mission to disrupt all sensible discussions ?
My impression was first that opposition from AC could have the benefit of the needle preventing self-indulgence consensus. Props for the persistence to that respect Mr. AC.
Problem it now appears to me as mostly aimed at parasiting any attempt of fruitful dialog on the theme set by a given post that may come up in the thread. Motivated by a kind of personal vendetta, a particularly obsessive behavior, or simply a commissioned work is almost irrelevant.
So Mr. AC, would you mind provide a view on the matter raised by the post. E.G. What's the risk for Netflix to be sued here under current system and with the current players?in your opinion. Are they doing it right ?
Obviously not asking for a prospective view of how the system should evolve, as you playground is strictly on how things are today in the letter of the law, with players defending their absolute immaterial "property".
The funny thing is I would find it truely interesting to have that analysis from an IP maximalist on the gien situation. And why not, bring some actual sense of reality into us poor padawans.
Please stop whining, stop the disruptive controversy, personal attacks and bring it on with actual analysis.
TIA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Someone (we don't care who) is making something involving the Internet? Can we sue them? Alright, let's sue them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the bright side...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA claims due to Netflix providing subtitles they're losing billions of dollars a day.
Then
Netflix announced they it will no longer be providing subtitles to movies without them.
Then
Deaf users turn away from Netflix because of Hollywood greed.
Then
Netflix sued for 80 trillion over copyright infringement from adding subtitles.
Then
Netflix raided and shut down by the DOJ and arrested the Netflix CEO for mass copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now it seems the industry wants money both coming and going - charge to provide subtitles and then reap the profits from those in need of subtitles. It is clear that subtitles are used mostly by those with hearing disabilities, or by those who are watching a film not in their first language. Add the fact that adding subtitles are now required by law, and it becomes rather obvious "fair use" applies here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only one question really
The only copyright question this helps bring up are why the heck are America's copyright laws so insanely stupid and one sided? Copyright needs to be massively reeled in or outright repealed at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only one question really
Sue mothers, grandmas, helpless students, fuck up the ppl with some sort of disability. Keep going MAFIAA. I hope you go down in flames and a lot of pain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ADA people should go after the studios and sue them too for interfering with the laws of the land and seek punitive measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh to be able to imbed songs to a post or discussion thread...
Talk about a "Clowns to left, jokers to the right" scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can we say overreach?
I previously worked in a college office that converted books and articles for blind & dyslexic students. The ADA and various federal statutes mandate the conversion of files, which we stored and shared with whichever students required them. These conversion processes were essentially format-shifting, and I'm sure there are some book publishers out there who would be screaming to know we did that, but it happens all around the country right now and is not only legal but required to keep schools from getting sued. As it should be.
Denying people with disabilities access based on copyright is where the copyright maximalists will start going down, because the disability lobby is a lot stronger than it used to be. Plus, it has the moral high ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're breaching the ADA if there are no subtitles!
You're breaching copyright if you have subtitles!
Thats the end of you're business model, guess you'll have to shut down.
I do wonder why they don't just claim: "We can only legaly provide what the studio gives us, so it's the studio that's breaching the act. Please force them to provide subtitles."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This must be....
Does it benefits someone? Yes , Does it cause prejudice to someone? Heck no!!!
And YES there are huge benefits from the subtitles for those who need them (See ADA you jack ass)
As a matter of fact we should force all sources to be available with subs, even theaters, I mean think about it when they have 4 screens showing a movie like Avengers and I cant go see It pisses me off.
I love foreign film because there almost always shown with the subs.
So basically I need to wait for everything to come out to DVD or BRay and then I have to BUY everything I want to see because there closing rentals and now it'll be Netflix?
I mean for the love of GOD we have rights to no and I don't mean the right to shut up!!!
Please remember that at the heart of that stupid debate his basically the right for everyone to acces the same content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
easy crowdsourcing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]