sk00byd00

It happened with Kissinger before. If one were cynical, one might assume that the closed Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee, entirely different to the Swedish Nobel Prize committee (started by Alfred Nobel), may have been used as a PR mechanism by outside parties for quite some time.

If I am not mistaken you mean "steganography" and not "stenography" as the latter is the person(s) that transcribe in a courtroom. I have never seen a spell check that had the word steganography in it though.

Its a shame you didn't attempt to explain further, we could have both learned something. As it stands now, in certain respects, I disagree.

Isn't the convention to only use the phrase o'clock when using a 12 hour notation?

Sure but then Netflix and Universal stealing translated subtitles from these "pirates" and including it on their commercial content is also piracy.

Thing is though, as a civil claim, the monetary incentive is clear on the movie companies side but not the "pirates". I suppose with all things being equal, in the spirit of fair play, we can expect to see headlines stating these people have been awarded a massive sum of money in the future right?

People get confused about copyright because it is confusing. It isn't what it was when it was created and your interpretation of copyright makes no allowance for fair use, and as far as I am aware those precedents set in the 80s still stand to this day. So until they don't, you're only half right.

> but that does not permit them to distribute it without the original work's copyright holder's permission (and the original work's copyright holder would need the derivative's copyright holder's permission to distribute that.

There are cases (at least in Scandinavia) where the subtitles on a Norwegian subtitle site showed up on the Blueray version (noticeable due to huge cultural mistakes in the translation), when the Norwegian site clearly had subtitles first.

I'll start holding my breath for when the law will be applied equally on both sides.

Before coming to Sweden I would have probably agreed with that, now, however, I am inclined to believe Swedish laws are only applicable to Swedish people where and when America is not involved.

Other than all those times, yeah, sure.

Scripts are copyrighted but the translated subtitles are never straight translations of scripts (as I have found out in recent years being English in a non-English country), there is a level of interpretation (using a similar phrase, or a different cultural reference, perhaps just converting imperial to metric).

Then you have to also consider the fact that many of the subtitles included on DVDs and sometimes even theatrical releases (at least in Sweden and Norway) are very often lifted from online sources the movie companies attack (rather than them hiring actual translators for all the markets they wish to conquer).

Finally... I might be wrong on this but what happened to fair use? There were cases in the 80's that cemented our standard of fair use. Humming a song on the street is fair use, providing translated derivative works when no alternative exists is fair use.

Your expensive vendors sit on security patches for weeks and my free ones shoot them out almost immediately. Why is that not a business concern?

I don't think it's zelotry, there are a lot of advantages to open source software you aren't going to get from Microsoft. If you are an edge case and you happen to stumble on that race condition bug are you going to have your engineers black box test and reverse engineer someone elses product illegally while they wait around for Microsoft support or have them look under the hood, patch the bug and move on?

What the big licenses fees get you is accountability, which is of course a huge thing, but what open source gives you is control.

I think if your business is software, then open source makes perfect business sense, especially if one of your assets is a team of competent engineers.

Yes I understand that. What I was suggesting is that the poor people in Tower Hamlets haven't all been displaced, just the people in the Shoreditch triangle, which is tiny in population when you compare to say, Bow, just next door.

So the amount of money brought in from the Shoreditch gentrification and subsequent business tax breaks leading up to the Olympics was so great in that one concentrated area that the ENTIRE Tower Hamlets looks decent statistically but the reality is very different.

Fascinating. I find it especially interesting to see the results of gentrification. As someone who watched a million Nathan Barleys take over Shoreditch in the mid to late 00's until the artists left, it is absolutely amazing to see the average salary of Tower Hamlets is now £3400.

Where did all those poor people go?

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

There is a difference between legal and lawful.