4 ms·
"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 s
by 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 agoWell, 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 agoSo now speech-to-text is illegal if the system allows itself to be fed copyrighted works as input?
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoNo, the service appears to exist only on the platform with copyrighted works?