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.
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: australia, censorship, copyright, fan subs, site blocking, subtitles
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Screw you for making my product better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Why is it that all these "useful" products are based on laziness of obtaining the licenses?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Again.. This is NOT USA law being considered here (and treaties do not hold water either).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
there's still time for it to appear. I'm not greedy and demand it immediately. But my end of the bargain has been implemented, so a mansion is required. I just need to get one before i retire.
obviously the process is still ongoing. The product isnt even available in the market properly, so its no suprise that the mansin is late too..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
If watching the movie requires a movie ticket or other permission, why do you think that "watching the movie and creating derived work" is somehow different?
> This is NOT USA law being considered here (and treaties do not hold water either).
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Try and obtain a license to create and distribute sub titles, and see just how far you get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
> Try and obtain a license to create and distribute sub titles, and see just how far you get.
Well, at some point they asked if I wanted to start creating something similar. Had to refuse their invitation since I didn't see any way for their tiny company to obtain the required licenses. Thus the correct solution is to refuse to create such works.
Of course the situation is different if you have few billions of extra money around, and can actually get the expensive licenses. But then hiring a few persons to obtain the licenses isn't too big burden.
Small entities do have some limitations on what they're allowed to do, simply because they cannot do it properly while respecting all the required limitations that content owners want for any such implementation.
Basically the rules are different for large companies and small entities or individuals. Large companies can actually follow the requirements that copyrightowners are trying to enforce.
This is why looking at how google or microsoft is able to provide the service and trying to imitate their solution isn't a valid plan -- simply because you cannot absorb 100k copyright infringement lawsuits from your wallet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
there goes the argument that content owners doesnt provide subtitles at all...
> they let us download videos
so the operation is really illegal...
> they use the fastest and most reliable distribution network in existence
so you only accept the best warez in existence using the best technology in the world...
> they don't litigate against their fans.
so they leave that burden to mpaa? Are they lazy too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
- 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is there an equivalent ADA Law in Australia, and can you obtain copyright on something you’re legally obliged to produce in Australia?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
No worries, you can have another crack at it next time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You have inadvertently suggested a possible alternative here - produce a separate audio track with sync capabilities to play along side the properly purchased movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
> I use steam for games because valve hasn't been behaving badly enough,
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
While examining what products someone uses, you cannot always detect why the person is a criminal, the test is pretty accurate.
All the normal people are using cheap but useful products.
If you see diamonds or expensive cars, it's guaranteed it's a criminal gang.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can you spot the one word that changes the entire meaning and intent of this sentence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Futility in action
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You can make it legal by getting the required licenses. It seems this operation of getting licenses is somehow evil to these people.
> What part of this don't you lot who claim to think everything is unlawful or 'illegal' and punishment or damages is pre-ordained.
Many of the activities are illegal, if you fail to obtain the license.
> Also whether it was unlawful or not in first instance to watch is absolutely irrelevant for the new (derivative or not) work.
It's pretty relevant for their claim that "no license is required". It's absolutely clear that the claim is bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
No it hasn't, nobody wants want you created, and having a product that sells is part of the bargain, so no mansion for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Too bad the whole europe wanted the product since it sold over 250 million units.
> and having a product that sells is part of the bargain,
Already delivered.
> so no mansion for you.
You're actually trying to take away the mansion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
> 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
I'm not greedy
This is why you get funny votes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Maybe pay for advertisements on three buses this time!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Large products have multiple parts. It's not just single piece that succeeds or fails, but instead there are multiple pieces which have different properties. Overall market could be 250 million gadgets, but the edge of the area might not be available in the market yet.
You basically have to consider it a circle where the radius of the circle is 250 million units, but one pixel at the edge of the circle is not yet in the market.
Why do you think you can dismiss the work simply because small part of it isn't yet on the market?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
The mansion is a promise by the government, not that particular company.
But this number of only required because there is claims that the product doesn't have any customers. That claim has been proven wrong. Somehow they think that this number matters at all relative to the mansion issue. Now that they see the actual number, they still can't see a reason for a mansion. It's as if there isn't anything that would allow it to exist.
Promises need to be kept, without any conditions. If government makes those promises, you're supposed to trust the information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Sure, the topmost bosses already got their mansions.(very nice mansions too, the picture of it was posted to new york times) But they were at the edge of retirement, so it's obvious that it would be their time to get a mansion.
But I'm already planning how to get my mansion. It doesn't help if only the topmost bosses get mansions. Obviously I don't think new york times is interested in my mansion -- I don't expect anything too magnificient.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived 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.
Happily licensing hollywood movies isn't the only game in town. While hollywood is powerful, we trust there is market outside of their sandbox.
Just need to be accurate enough that our solution does not accidentally go to the hollywood's area. It's more difficult to do than expected, since the market is heavily geared towards licensing hollywood movies, but avoiding it is really the right solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is simply stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180703/16343340172/eu-parliaments-legislative-affairs-c ommittee-is-now-misleading-members-parliament-effort-to-fundamentally-alter-internet.shtml#c983
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Futility in action
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...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
> Please, again, cite where the government has made this promise.
In the copyright laws. But you just need to "follow" the copyright's limitations to detect what the prediction is.
Obviously filthy pirates are not qualified for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You just didnt read it carefully enough.
> Nor are those who made worthless products.
They couldnt figure out anything useful from electricity invention either. Still their prediction came true and now the whole world is based on it.
Basically you're trying to evaluate the inventions too early.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
> People who didn't make things that were useful did not.
You'll just change your mind about whether it's useful, once you see my lightbulb.
> If in a couple of decades you're anything more than a bitter deluded failure, I will retract my statements.
I'll be happy to join the ranks of bitter old men. They're famous for making our lives so much better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
so you didn't click one of the images to discover the actual content?
> but now that you're trying to claim ridiculous sales numbers, lets see the evidence.
well, you're the one focusing on sales numbers and trying to dismiss the work for some bogus reasons like customers dont want it. O'm sure lightbulbs had this exact same barrier to overcome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
> Not after 250 million of them had been sold. Where's your proof of achieving this?
Stephen Elop was the boss that made all this happen. You can figure out the rest yourself, since he's supposedly quite famous in some circles.
Is that enough proof for you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
It makes at least it plausible that there exists 250 million of something stacked somewhere in the corner in this story.
The code is just what happened afterwards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
"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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Yes, what do you think programmers are selling? Their code
obviously. They cannot claim credit for the hardware marvels that is also available.
> The number of bullshit claims made by you in order to deflect away from your failure in these threads?
You don't see the real failure. Always focusing on the small details, and never seeing the big picture.
How many errors do you think is allowed if you plan to duplicate the bullshit code 250 million times? Every one of them causes huge damage.
What quality level you think the code uses? After 20 years of requirements about no errors whatsoever in the code, this fresh new code, how many errors you think is there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Nope. That's not the code you're looking for.
The websites code is not copied many times since it's just one copy that runs in the web server. You should have knoen this if you have any idea how web servers are working.
You have to think harder to see the right solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
already provided.
> designing your website so that visitors know what it's meant to be doing
this is why you failed. Mystery sells much better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Citation needed, especially after all your moaning about how your adverts failed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
This means there is that many copies of the software available in the world. Not just single copy running in web server.
Basically the situation is more complicated than you can imagine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
It might be that the bus ads didn't sell the millions of gadgets... There might be something larger operation available for that purpose.
Why do you expect that the bus-ads are the only thing going on here? It's obvious that bus-ad in one city cannot sell the product to the whole europe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Promises need to be kept. If govt makes a promise, any "you have to earn it" is not cutting it.
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".
You probably missed the early part of the story where there was information about the fact that it's _not possible_ for humans to do any more work. How is "earning it" possible if it's absolutely impossible for humans to do?
Guess we'll just hire some robots, and fire your ass, since you're not efficient enough compared to our new AI solution. 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. There's people managing the machines which does the actual work.
All this requires significant amount of research and investments. But it's already done, and the world is happy about our performance for a short amount of time, until the rest of the world catches up to our efficiency.
But we wont hold our breath waiting for it to happen. They're still using outdated stuff, doing manual work where more efficient solutions are available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
I have never claimed that I want money. I already have enough of it. But this does not solve the actual problem.
Mansion is required, not just any mansion, but something better than a doghouse.
Creating a mansion is significantly more difficult than getting some green pieces of paper which are not useful for anything other than forcing lazy bums like you spend their time on some activities.
Getting "money" isn't the actual issue at all. I never claimed that I want your money.
Basically I'm not going to spend my money on the mansion. Your claim is that I need to part my money to receive the mansion, but that's bullshit. Since your position is that people need to part with their copyrighted works _without compensation_, then these mansions need to appear without compensation too.
I'm just asking where my mansion is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Same place it's always been - in fantasyland with your millions of sales and your superior coding ability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
> Same place it's always been - in fantasyland with your millions of sales
This is just ok. Since I'm a programmer, I know how to turn fantasyland stuff to useful realworld products. The process is quite simple, you design the product in a computer first, i.e. in fantasyland -- I have tools designed for doing exactly that. Then there is easy conversion to voxels or other suitable data structure. Then we just use 3d printer get a realworld object out of it. Supposedly these 3d printers can create anything from small plastic objects to real buildings. So all the bases are covered.
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. So it's as if govt haven't been doing their part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
I'm not interested in the money aspect. That's outdated technology. I already decided at age 8 that money isn't suitable for what I want to do. It's as useful as the pieces of paper you can find from the monopoly or donald duck cartoons. Basically the economy that allows copying
the copyrighted works is working better than the money.
This is why I opted for free software originally. They had a legal-sounding way of doing the copying without any compensation to the authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
If we can create dirt cheap stuff in the order of 250 million units, obviously the next step is to try to do the same trick with zero cost. Since I already managed in the first part, the next thing to attempt is to use to free economy for something useful. Sadly useful has been defined so that it's outside of computers, so there's some conversions required before we can get fantasyland stuff converted to real-world applications. Seems getting even single product done in required quality is significant burden, much less create 250 million of them.
Obviously the whole idea behind these attempts is to utilize the copying economy for something which becomes useful in real world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Remember that this number is only required to kill the bullshit claims about not having any customers at all and thus not having earned the mansion. Their claim was zero customers, real number is around 250 million, then their claims is simply bullshit. If they can't keep their guesses in reasonable range, we can just declare them bullshit.
The 250 million number comes from the number of "phones" sold in europe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
these companies are doing nothing useful that the law does not force them to do? Are these companies supposed to keep our economy and society floating or are they just playing games with the laws?
Companies have other responsibilities than just following the laws. If you can't see that, then the discussion is worthless. You cannot be helped if you think that the purpose of a company is to follow the law without thinking.
Getting a mansion is very reasonable request to the system that these companies are maintaining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
...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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
This is pretty accurate statement of the real situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
> Then stop fucking asking me for it, jackass.
request for a mansion is completely different from requesting money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
This is required when you grow older.
> Let me guess, you did the work for hire and imagine you should have some kind of royalty deal,
Well, the only reason why these 250million numbers came up was because you insisted on trying to find the number of customers we have. It's not too important number in the overall analysis.
But as explained before, I'm not trying to gather enough money to _buy_ a mansion.
The operation is more like trying to find a way to _build_ one without using money at all. This is supposedly possible in the copying economy, but you havent yet revealed who can actually design mansions for me?
But our best plan currently is as follows:
1) provide a tool to design mansions
2) let community go wild with the tools
3) pick best designs for further improvement
4) convert the models to correct format
5) run it through 3d printer
6) mansion(s) done.
Obviously trivial things like positioning of bricks is already available. But the tools are growing complicated and soon they wont be usable by the general public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You have no reason to question the quality of the work, given that you haven't been able to produce anything even near that quality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
The tech development is quite far from that still. We don't even have working plans how to build one. It's not possible to get a permit without suitable plan. But govt isn't providing the plans that worked with this technology, so we need to summon the community to help with the task.
Obviously the plans can be created, if I just created the model myself. But that doesnt prove that the tool is usable by other people. Author of the tool is always worst possible person to test the validity of the technology. Newbies can see significant problems which just isn't available to the original author.
While the tool isn't as flexible as we wanted, adding more complexity will bring it outside of what normal people can handle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
What a pathetic waste you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
So you really don't have anything worth sharing?
What makes you qualified for the money you receive?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You didn't tell us why you're so cool, so why would I do that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Why are you so scared to show us the achievement you're so proud of? Could it be that it doesn't exist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
This isn't true. Lifetime of software development is able to produce alot more than just those 250 million units.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
You failed to show your work. End of discussion.
If you're not part of the solution, you're a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
Go on, show us this fantastic work that's sold millions of copies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
I'm not evaluating your claims. But your work doesn't look too good. You better claim some area or you'll be ruined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works
I'm expert on that part, since the 250 million stuff are
user interfaces.
> The question on the table is: where are these 250 million sales you claim to have?
This question were answered long ago, you just missed it. The phones were sold to europe. Check for example this
statistics:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272758/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-phone-v endors-by-quarter/
I just googled it.
> What I do or do not do is irrelevant.
Nope, you claimed quality problems in my work, so whatever you managed to create that is better quality is of interest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly derived w
...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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly deriv
i'm not claiming ownership. The quality of the work is just good enough that 250 million people consider it "good enough" that they can actully buy it.
> can tell you that a movie sucks even if I haven't sat behind the camera.
This is why I require that you only compare the work to whatever you managed to create yourself. Normal comparision in internet seems to focus on the following process:
1) Choose some poor guy who you want to harrass
2) Pick one of his work for comparision
3) Google some crap from the internet
4) Pick some feature that the stuff you found from internet is doing well
5) If the poor guy still becomes a winner, repeat from (3).
6) Claim that poor guy loses
When better process is as follows:
1) pick two separate persons (from same forum.. shouldnt compare against donald trump)
2) enumerate all work items belonging to both persons
3) compare the output of two separate persons
See, the 2nd version is alot more fair than the first one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clearly d
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are clear
> Why is step 3 so difficult for you?
It's not. It was already proven long ago. You just missed the evidence or tried to bury it under matress, trying to make it disappear...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtitles are c
Surely a man with such resounding success won't mind repeating his achievement here rather than just repeating a number?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Proof...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Proof...
"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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Proof...
this kind of insults are saving you always from actually thinking through the information received?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Proof...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof...
The code was all about user interface aspects of the device, so if that part is broken, they wouldn't be able to sell anything. Thus the number of sales means that the work was implemented perfectly. 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. Given that you haven't heard about it in your blogosphere, the work was done magnificiently.
Obviously the software was used by all the devices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof...
> No, it means it worked well enough that the device performed adequately.
This is already difficult enough that humans have trouble doing it at all. Even largest companies are struggling with this requirement, so any time it succeeds, it's a good sign.
Perfect implementation means that better solution wouldn't be possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof...
That's better position than what you have. Your position is that you didn't bother to do anything worthy. Basically you just waited for other people to do it for you.
At least I claim to have done something, which doesnt seem to be trivial requirement for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subtitles are clearly derived works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]