5 ms·
By this logic, when you buy a book, you'd need a special license to read it to your children. It's the exact inverse of speech-to-text - if one is forbidden, th
by deogeo 7y ago
By this logic, when you buy a book, you'd need a special license to read it to your children. It's the exact inverse of speech-to-text - if one is forbidden, then so is the other.
- john_minsk 7y agoI hope someone uses this line of reasoning on main TV channels: CHRONICLE, HACHETTE, HARPERCOLLINS, MACMILLAN, PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE, SCHOLASTIC AND SIMON & SCHUSTER are trying to make it illegal to read their books to your children. All with their logos on the screen. Oh. Can I dream...
- zentiggr 7y agoThe critical difference is that your reading it to your children is not distributed or for sale, therefore is in private fair use.
- deogeo 7y agoBut allowing a user to convert between text and speech on their own device isn't selling the converted version. And if this conversion is done not locally, but via SaaS, that's just an implementation detail. I believe there's precedent for this (which I cannot find at the moment), but if this was not the case, then you could not touch any document you did not have copyright on using e.g. Google Docs. Edit: Found the precedent where time-shifting (i.e. video recording) was found to be non-infringing, regardless of if it's done locally or remotely [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Holdings,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Hol....
- dymk 7y agoThis isn’t the user doing the conversion, it’s an Amazon product doing it. You say it’s “just” an implementation detail, but the distinction of how it’s being generated matters.
- deogeo 7y agoIf I add notes to a PDF using Adobe Acrobat, did I add the notes, or did an Adobe product do it? What if I do it with Google Docs, in the cloud? Then it's not even on my machine.
- la_barba 7y agoYou are conflating agency of action with the means of action.
- danShumway 7y agoThis is a distinction I don't understand. If I run a local speech-to-text client on my computer for my own use, that's pretty established fair use. If I run the same software on a Raspberry Pi and transmit the results over my LAN for my own use, I assume that's also fair use. If I provision an AWS VM and run the same software there, and then transmit the results back to my device for my own use, is that fair use? If I get my best friend to provision the AWS VM and run the same software there, and then transmit the results back to my device for my own use, is that fair use? If Amazon provisions the AWS VM for me, and runs the same software there, and then transmits the results back to my device for my own use, is that fair use? People are drawing a line here that I genuinely don't see. The whole thing feels incredibly arbitrary to me. The agency of action is that the user is asking a computer to perform a task. The means of action is a piece of software running on a computer, computing results on the fly.
- la_barba 7y ago>If Amazon provisions the AWS VM for me, and runs the same software there, and then transmits the results back to my device for my own use, is that fair use? Did Amazon do it out of their own volition, or did you instruct them to do it? Also what you're considering fair use, may or may not be fair use. Fair use is a specific exemption made in a specific context. You cannot reapply that exemption in an SaaS context and call it equivalent. You'll have to first demonstrate the legal basis for your claim that the two contexts are equivalent. Also I do recognize that all of us here are non-experts giving our two cents, so any disagreement we have is TBH inconsequential to what the law actually says and how its actually interpreted! :)
- runn1ng 7y agoYou would need a special license if you read it to your children and then sell that recording.
- deogeo 7y agoBut the users aren't selling the generated text. And Amazon is only providing a service that lets the users do the conversion, much like Google Docs lets users edit documents.
- angry_octet 7y agoIf you livestreamed reading to your children you would have to pay -- you are performing the work in public.
- brachi 7y agoThen I wonder why people who stream video games don't have to pay?
- deogeo 7y agoBecause most video game publishers allow them to stream without paying. But not all: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/28/18117172/nintendo-youtube-monetization-partner-program-super-smash-bros-ultimate-lets-play-livestream https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/28/18117172/nintendo-youtub...
- lkschubert8 7y agoI would assume because it's viewed as free advertisement.
- brachi 7y agoI think also because the key to the experience is interaction and playing. However, in more 'cinematic' games, one can avoid purchasing the game and just watch a speed run.
- AndrewGaspar 7y agoSome license holders have legally restricted streaming of games in the past (think licensed music, but also some specific games). The reason they don't generally is because it's in their best interest to have people streaming their games online.