786
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by gedaliyah@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 168 points 9 months ago

I anticipate a LOT of audiobook authors and publishers aren’t gonna be ok with that.

I hope not! I hope they interpret it this way and are willing and able to take action, by removing their catalog or maybe even a class action lawsuit. 

[-] Talaraine@kbin.social 37 points 9 months ago

They don't. The message right now is to boycott Spotify.

[-] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 33 points 9 months ago

Except Spotify is one of the only hopes against Audible. Audible gives terrible deals to authors, if you sell your audiobook exclusively through audible they take a 60% cut of the sale, and if you sell through multiple audiobook stores they take 75%.

And that's just the official numbers, according to this source they actually pay out even less than that. The average author's cut for an exclusive title is only 21%, and for a non-audible exclusive is only 13%.

Large established authors get significantly better deals, but all the smaller authors desperately need audiobook rivals like spotify to be a viable alternative to Audible's monopoly death grip on the industry. So it's not as simple as "boycott spotify", spotify or someone else badly needs to succeed in getting a meaningful slice of the market.

[-] Talaraine@kbin.social 18 points 9 months ago

Thankfully there are alternatives out there, and we should be using them.

[-] poppy@lemm.ee 20 points 9 months ago

When discussions like this happen I think it’s good to actually suggest alternatives!

I don’t listen to audiobooks, but a lot of people I know use libro.fm

Also your local library probably partners with Hoopla and/or Libby which allows you to borrow audiobooks straight to your PC/phone!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 5 points 9 months ago

I can't wait to hear what Brandon Sanderson says about this

[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

That is if they are aware of it. How many time do you just hit accept on a TOS agreement

[-] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

altering the deal

Maybe it’s time people start taking their business elsewhere to show they are not satisfied with this deal.

[-] Skyhighatrist@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 months ago

I saw this getting traction on Tik Tok a few days ago warning rightsholders they have until, I think, Mar 5th to pull their content from the platform.

[-] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 103 points 9 months ago

So, they want to create AI written and narrated audiobooks that use the voices of well known voice actors without paying them for the privilege? How is that supposed to stand in court?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

It wouldn't be to save the cheap coat of a voice actor.

It's so they can play the audio to their AI for free without having to say it was fed a copywritten text. It would also get better at telling stories, depending on the quality it was fed.

But the main advantage is training it to follow a long verbal narrative. And decide if it's better to transcribe it for full reference, or just make a summary as the story goes and risk missing an important bit.

Then to repeat it in the AI's "own words". This would make a huge loophole for exploiting famous authors. If you feed AI the text, the author can argue it was trained on it. If the AI just listened to it and makes a summary and remembers the structure. Derivative works of famous authors can be claimed to be no different than a human emulating popular authors that they had read.

They're just trying to find a way around using the full text, and reading it aloud might be enough.

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That’s some wild speculation there.

What you described would be a contrived and inefficient workaround that would have little to no impact on its legality compared to just using the underlying texts as part of a training corpus.

Not sure why you think Spotify wouldn’t want to eliminate the cost of voice actors and production. If you’re self-publishing, recording and producing an audiobook traditionally is a substantial expense. If Spotify can offer something like Google’s Auto-Narrated Audiobooks to authors, then that would enable them to bring those authors to Spotify (potentially exclusively).

Spotify’s goal also is not necessarily to imitate the voices from the existing audiobooks. There is a lot that goes into making an audiobook successful, and just copying the voice alone wouldn’t convey that. For example, pairing tone and cadence changes with what’s being narrated, techniques for conveying dialogue, particularly between different characters, etc.. How you speak is just as important as your raw voice.

That would allow Spotify to create audiobooks using those techniques without using the voice of anyone who hadn’t signed away rights to it. However I would argue that some of the techniques they would likely use are integral to a person’s voice.

It’s also feasible that Spotify wants to be able to take an existing audiobook and make it available with a different voice. This wouldn’t require the audiobook to have ever been trained on - they would just replace the existing voice in it with another while preserving the pauses, tone shifts, etc. (and possibly adjusting them to be appropriate for the new voice).

More closely aligned to the specific derivative work they mentioned would be to implement something like Kindle/Audible’s Whispersync, potentially in collaboration with a non-Amazon ebook retailer like Barnes&Noble or Kobo.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 9 months ago

This is a much better take.

Intonation is huge, and something general models tend to have trouble with - especially with something like an audiobook, which is narration - it's very contextual in a way not found in almost any other form of communication. It even encapsulates every other form of context through dialogue.

And not only that - a lot of audiobooks have versions by multiple voice actors. And they might change a word here or there, but it's highly structured data - it's truly a treasure trove

I'd go a step further and say they really want access to the dataset - not just for audiobooks, but because this is a fantastic dataset to train very context aware (and silky smooth) text to voice.

Spotify probably doesn't have the chops to do this, but they might be trying to leverage the dataset - I'm not sure if they could sell it wholesale or not, but if nothing else they could "partner" with Microsoft or Google to train VTT capabilities into multi-modal LLMs (a pitch with all the buzzwords to make investors need to change their underwear)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

Voices can't be protected by copyright but there may be a legal avenue for someone like Morgan Freeman to sue if a voice is clearly a knock off of his voice AND he can make a case for it damaging his "brand".

I'd be impressed though if AI can write a novel without directly referencing a fictional person, place or thing that someone else made up. Stable Diffusion, for example, can make a picture of dog wearing a tracksuit running on the side of a skyscraper made of pudding in the middle of a noodle hurricane. But it didn't invent any of those individual components, it just combined them.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

No. This is very likely about translations.

The idea that they'll be creating an unofficial sequel to your audiobook and selling it without your permission or something is a pretty ridiculous leap that would be very unlikely to actually hold up in court.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Meanwhile no one had to pay me a royality if they use my picture and they call themselves a news service.

[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 42 points 9 months ago

Yeah I think they're trying to slip one on us to train AI but we'll see how rightsholders respond.

Are they already doing this for podcasters?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] z3r0_Geek@lemmy.zip 32 points 9 months ago

Great! I can't wait some assholes telling that this is progress and if you don't like it go fuck yourself

[-] mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Well that's what happens when investors make techbros defacto kings.

If you're pissed about it, blame capitalism.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one 29 points 9 months ago

I wonder how many of these policies are being created in companies privacy policies not because of AI, but because it gives a "reason" to allow collection of all user data?

[-] Alivrah@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

A little from column A, a little from column B...

[-] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 27 points 9 months ago

This is why you upload the most absurd shit that makes no sense, if you're a well known audiobook author. Just remove all your stuff and replace them with nonsense so that way if they try to train off you, they get a little nonsense.

[-] TheEntity@kbin.social 20 points 9 months ago

And so the enshittification continues. This time not for the consumers. Not yet.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

This is probably so that they can create translated versions of them, so if your audiobook is only in English and you upload it you can check a box to have it also be available in other languages you'd never have been serving otherwise.

It's almost certainly expanding on the same service they added for podcasters:

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2023-09-25/ai-voice-translation-pilot-lex-fridman-dax-shepard-steven-bartlett/

(A translation is a derivative work.)

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Likely. They want something for nothing - free translation without paying a translator, licensing an official translation, paying a voice actor, etc. If the TOS only said that it would already be extremely problematic.

In fact the language is so much more broad than that.

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

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.

[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

Ah yes the "labour should be free" / "but if we have to get permits from every artist we won't be able to feed our AIs!" argument.

Listen, I'm not gonna lie. it'd be wonderful if we lived in the utopia where everything is autotranslated for us (not to mention it's done correctly, no "Brock's jelly donuts"). But there's 123456 ways to get it done with human labour properly paid and the corporations are in the position where they have the power and the responsibility to do it. Else authors are going to end up with automated translations which are sold as "official" but over which they don't have control, in particular if the AI translation misrepresents them (using language the author wouldn't changing concepts, or even - imagine - adding slurs).

Like, sure, maybe these corpos don't want to pay for someone to do the translation from scratch... but have they thought of looking for fandom translations and sourcing and paying for those? That's work already done, and has the advantage that someone cared enough about the "niche work", kinda like with anime fansubs. Or they could also, you know, novel idea and all, pay people a wage to translate this. I know. The horror. How dare I suggest that a company doesn't divert wages and income to the CEOs!

[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago

I hope that once enough people get replaced with automation, they'll realize how shit capitalism is and push for harsher corporate tax to fund UBI.

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] moitoi@feddit.de 14 points 9 months ago

This will be an unpopular opinion here.

I'm not against AI but the rules have to be in laws and regulations. First, AI can't use copyrighted material without paying for it. It can't either use material without asking individually.

The second point is that AI can't created copyrighted material. Whatever an AI created, it's free of copyright and everyone can use it.

Third, an AI can't be a blackbox. It has to be comprehensive how it works and what the AI is doing. A solution would be to have source available code.

Fourth, AI can't violate laws, create and push misinformation, and material used for misinforming.

And, of course, anything created using AI has to be indentified as such.

The money is in what the AI can do, the quality of the result, and the quality of the code. All the other things isn't valuable.

[-] mint_tamas@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

Your third point is an active research topic, we can’t explain exactly what generative (and other) models do beyond their generic operation.

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

If we could explain it, it would just be another rules engine 😅

[-] mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Most of those laws are unenforcable and some are even undetectable.

Your ideology is getting in the way of objective fact.

[-] xor@infosec.pub 3 points 9 months ago

1 & 2 are... #3 is impossible, though...

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Maybe they just want to include clips of the audio book in user’s yearly review thing.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

That's plausible and I'm a little rusty on my IP here but I would call that a fair use. Derivative works use existing work in a new way, where the added creativity is sufficient to make the new work itself copyrightable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mango@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago
[-] massivefailure@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

Yet another example of why if you can't download DRM-free files of your media, it's not worth having. Spotify is absolute trash and I have no idea why it's as popular as it is. Get you some damn MP3s/Ogg Vorbis/FLAC/whatever DRMless copies of your audiobooks and music and to hell with this streaming shit.

[-] abessman@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

DRM has absolutely nothing do to with this.

[-] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

So...in the future you might want to consider actually reading the article before commenting.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
786 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59374 readers
3328 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS