Technology

59495 readers

3114 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

786

Spotify just changed their TOS, giving them unprecedented rights to create "derivative works" from audiobooks (storyfair.net)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by gedaliyah@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

They frame it as though it's for user content, more likely it's to train AI, but in fact it gives them the right to do almost anything they want - up to (but not including) stealing the content outright.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

I mean, at a certain point this kind of thinking becomes like the MPAA's math around thinking every person downloading a movie from a streaming service was a lost sale.

Yes, this would mean a massive expansion of translated audiobooks without the labor that traditionally would have gone into creating them.

But we don't have translations for the majority of audiobooks in the majority of languages because the costs of that labor has historically outweighed the benefits of a potential expanded audience in niche languages for the long tail of audiobooks.

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where there's broad accessibility to information for all people regardless of their native languages, rather than one in which humanity tears down its own tower of Babel to artificially preserve the status quo.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's fair, and I have no problem with authors employing machine translation in order to translate their works. However, I happen to think that that should be the writer's decision.

Most authors would much rather employ a professional translator to get it right instead of a computer to approximate it. He

[–] kromem@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

However, I happen to think that that should be the writer's decision.

I don't know why you think it won't be.

What, you think Spotify is just going to do it without the uploader choosing whether the feature is turned on or not?

The podcast translations are opt-in. Why do you think these won't be the same thing?

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Because I wasnt born yesterday, and dont spend my time with my head lodged firmly up my own asshole?

Look at how broad that legalese is. Ask yourself if auto application would make them more money. Now count what 2 + 2 is on your fingers.

load more comments (2 replies)