[romeros]

by profiting from another person's work.

[cced]

Is that really unfair? Surely we can see that in capitalist societies, profiteering from other peoples work is one of the core tenants.

[crazygringo]

The core tenet is that you've paid them for their work in order to profit off of it, in an exchange both parties have entered into freely.

Not that you've used their work without paying.

[cced]

So people transcribing audio/video content should be paying for the opportunity to do so? They are quite literally offering a service based on derivative work.

Surely this is already ironed out, no? What are laws regarding transcriptions?

[crazygringo]

No, they don't get to at all if they're creating something that takes away from sales of the original item.

Yes this is ironed out. It's completely illegal, as it should be. No question about it.

If you're translating subtitles (without accompanying images) for someone to use together with the original media, then there's a good argument that's legal (even though many courts disagree), since you're not taking away from sales -- you might even be helping with them.

But creating a comic-book version of a movie you can read instead of watch? That's just blatant copyright infringement, period.

[left-struck]

That would still be unfair, just broadly accepted unfairness.

[ben_w]

When it's unlawful, it's unfair — even when the law itself is unfair.