3 ms·
Honest question: If Apple would integrate an AI-based speech-to-text feature in the next iPhone as an accessibility feature that works for all audio captured by
by mstolpm 7y ago
Honest question: If Apple would integrate an AI-based speech-to-text feature in the next iPhone as an accessibility feature that works for all audio captured by microphone or generated by apps, would that be seen as copyright infringing? Would it have to be disabled for Audible (even at the request of a single publisher), Netflix (by request of a Netflix licensing partner) and other apps? If yes, then the publishers have a point. If not, shouldn't Audible be allowed to add thus a feature to their app if the speech-to-text feature doesn't use the original manuscript but only the audio for Realtime processing?
- scarface74 7y agoApple has a history of playing nice with copyright holders and allowing them to opt out of things like screen capture and even playing audio in the background on web pages (see YouTube)
- habosa 7y agoActually Android Q is adding exactly that feature so we may get to see this argument play out: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18528447/google-android-q-live-caption-video-transcription-io-2019 https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18528447/google-android-q-...
- phire 7y agoLegally, I suspect both cases would be handled the same. Real time speech to text for private use should be legal. However, Audible has to license content from copyright holders, which gives copyright holders a certain amount of power over Audible to force them to not offer such a feature, independent of the legality.