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.

    • uranibaba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

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

    • rhebucks-zh@incremental.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      So why didn’t they say “derivative works with content of equal sentence-level, character-level, name, and story-level meaning”. I think it’s gonna be used for something more than that. They want to update content to fit the woke agenda, and people will frame it as good.

      • LibreFish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sometimes it’s just because the lawyers who wrote TOS grab as much leeway as they can, even if it’s just to make a translation.

    • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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’.

    • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.