4 ms·

And if the transcription is done by the user? What if the user gets the print version, and decides to change the font, or background color, or screen brightness

by deogeo 7y ago

And if the transcription is done by the user? What if the user gets the print version, and decides to change the font, or background color, or screen brightness. What if they decide to change the volume of the audio version, or use an equalizer to change pitch, or change the reading speed - is that not also a derivative work? What if the user takes notes, associating them to time-stamps (audio) or written directly into the pages (print)? In all those cases the user has altered the work, and made a derivative one, if you will. But the publishers want control over how you consume their works - they want control over what happens on your own device, so they can extract more money from you. It's hard to express how abhorrent I find this.

perlgeek 7y ago
> And if the transcription is done by the user? If you can successfully argue that in court, chances are you'll win. > In all those cases the user has altered the work, and made a derivative one, if you will. It's a difference if you do it for your personal notes, or if you then distribute them at scale and make money from it. Just for the record I don't like how it's currently handled, it's just my best understanding of what the law and the courts say.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > It's a difference if you do it for your personal notes, or if you then distribute them at scale and make money from it. I think that's my main argument - this text-to-speech is the same as doing it for personal notes, and that if this is made illegal, then a huge number of other traditionally allowed activities become illegal. That it happens on someone else's server is irrelevant: 1) It's the same as hiring someone to take notes on a book you own. 2) There's precedent where someone making a recording on your behalf is legally the same as you doing it yourself. 3) If all else fails, the transcription can be done locally.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "I think that's my main argument - this text-to-speech is the same as doing it for personal notes," I don't know if this is actually true? Because this isn't suing individual audiobook holders, it's suing the company that is choosing to sell copyrighted-text-in-speech-to-text as a service.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      Well, it's selling a speech-to-text service, that the user applies to speech they own a license to. Why should the legal interpretation differ, just because of where the conversion happens? It could be done locally, or remotely, or locally but charge the user per-word translated. Looks like an implementation detail to me (and again, I think there's precedent backing me up in this view, but I can't find it, sorry).
      - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
        "Looks like an implementation detail to me (and again, I think there's precedent backing me up in this view, but I can't find it, sorry)." Yes, implemention details tend to be important when it comes to copyright and fair use.
    - Ajedi32 7y ago
      So now speech-to-text is illegal if the system allows itself to be fed copyrighted works as input?
      - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
        No, the service appears to exist only on the platform with copyrighted works?

by deogeo 7y ago

perlgeek 7y ago

> And if the transcription is done by the user? If you can successfully argue that in court, chances are you'll win. > In all those cases the user has altered the work, and made a derivative one, if you will. It's a difference if you do it for your personal notes, or if you then distribute them at scale and make money from it. Just for the record I don't like how it's currently handled, it's just my best understanding of what the law and the courts say.

deogeo 7y ago
> It's a difference if you do it for your personal notes, or if you then distribute them at scale and make money from it. I think that's my main argument - this text-to-speech is the same as doing it for personal notes, and that if this is made illegal, then a huge number of other traditionally allowed activities become illegal. That it happens on someone else's server is irrelevant: 1) It's the same as hiring someone to take notes on a book you own. 2) There's precedent where someone making a recording on your behalf is legally the same as you doing it yourself. 3) If all else fails, the transcription can be done locally.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "I think that's my main argument - this text-to-speech is the same as doing it for personal notes," I don't know if this is actually true? Because this isn't suing individual audiobook holders, it's suing the company that is choosing to sell copyrighted-text-in-speech-to-text as a service.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Well, it's selling a speech-to-text service, that the user applies to speech they own a license to. Why should the legal interpretation differ, just because of where the conversion happens? It could be done locally, or remotely, or locally but charge the user per-word translated. Looks like an implementation detail to me (and again, I think there's precedent backing me up in this view, but I can't find it, sorry).
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      "Looks like an implementation detail to me (and again, I think there's precedent backing me up in this view, but I can't find it, sorry)." Yes, implemention details tend to be important when it comes to copyright and fair use.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    So now speech-to-text is illegal if the system allows itself to be fed copyrighted works as input?
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      No, the service appears to exist only on the platform with copyrighted works?