Technology

59675 readers

4636 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

787

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 to c/technology

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

IIRC this is because Spotify wants to generate translations for these audiobooks in the original voices. At least, that's what I think I remember from a long time ago.

[–] uranibaba 1 points 9 months ago

I remember reading about voice actors being asked to sell their voice for something aimed related. Could be this.

[–] mods_are_assholes 1 points 9 months ago

Sure that's what they claim but their changes aren't restricted to that.

It's like saying "I want to take a knife into a knife free zone because I need to peel my apple for lunch." then stabbing everyone and claiming 'You're the ones that agreed to let me have the knife'.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Spotify wants to generate translations for these audiobooks in the original voices.

Would an author be able to claim trademark infringement? Not to mention libel or slander, if the translation says something the author definitively wouldn't (and obviously hasn't)? Such as, say, AI inserting slurs.