So, by this reasoning, it's the quality of the work that defines copyright? Frankly, that's idiotic.
Shouldn't it be the commercialization of that recording, be it by computer or by "someone reading the text who knows how to read out loud?"
If a production is made for commercial gain-- ie. sold to the public-- then copyright should come into play, and the author should be due a royalty on each copy. If I read a book out loud, even if I record it and distribute it to others for free and with no intention to profit from the work, then it shouldn't be subject to copyright anymore or any less than the "text to speech" function. Or, rather, as I believe is true under US copyright law, the copyright holder should retain the right to sue for 100% of the profit made by my recording which, in this case, is zero.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Shantyhag.
Re: text to speech is not audio
So, by this reasoning, it's the quality of the work that defines copyright? Frankly, that's idiotic.
Shouldn't it be the commercialization of that recording, be it by computer or by "someone reading the text who knows how to read out loud?"
If a production is made for commercial gain-- ie. sold to the public-- then copyright should come into play, and the author should be due a royalty on each copy. If I read a book out loud, even if I record it and distribute it to others for free and with no intention to profit from the work, then it shouldn't be subject to copyright anymore or any less than the "text to speech" function. Or, rather, as I believe is true under US copyright law, the copyright holder should retain the right to sue for 100% of the profit made by my recording which, in this case, is zero.