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

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).