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.

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    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.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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?

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