|
The earlier thrust was that text-to-speech is rudimentary sound whereas "audio recordings" are done by professionals who give great tone and inflection and because the sound was rudimentary, it was OK. If true, then the C3PO analogy is correct because it is a robotic voice. Either the fact that it is a robotic voice is the determining factor or it is not. If it is, then C3PO can sell tickets; if it is not, then the sound quality makes no difference to whether or not text-to-speech violates an author's audio rights.
But now the thrust has changed from the robotic voice being the distinguishing factor to personal versus public use and whether something is a performance or not. So where is the line? Is it whether money is being charged?
If I let my computer read Sunborn to me, that is OK because (a) it is a robotic voice with little-to-no inflection and (b) for personal use. If 10 of my friends and I are sitting around the campfire, can I use the text-to-speech to read it to us without violating the author's rights? If no, what is the line being drawn?
If the families of my friends join the circle, making us a group of 40, can I use the text-to-speech to read Sunborn to us without violating the author's rights? If no, what is the line being drawn?
Well, the story is so good that the other campers in the area have joined the crowd and there is now a crowd of 100. Nothing has changed but the size of the crowd. Still OK?
And so we sit and listen to Sunborn from beginning to end being read in this robotic voice and just for personal use -- no commercialism at all. Is this OK?
If this were an audio book that I purchased from, for example, Audible.com, as opposed to a text-to-speech conversion of an ebook that I purchased, the campfire crowd could listen without violating the author's rights. Is there no distinction between the two? Does buying the ebook mean that the author has given me both visual and auditory rights?
|