This really isn’t sinking in for you people, is it?
Amazon is not distributing text. Amazon is not distributing audio. Amazon is distributing digital data, which can be interpreted in different ways.
That’s a distinction without a difference.
I wonder how voice actors feel not that they’ve been determined to be no different from a mechanical TTS process.
I don’t think that’s true, but I’m sure they resent the loss of income. The same question could asked about advances in animation. Those characters I’ve seen in some recent commercials, etc, are close, but not the same as real people.
Undetectable computer generated voice and action combined in one movie/commercial/whatever can’t be far off.
Yes it is. To enforce DRM prescribed uses requires iron fisted control of hardware which is a can of worms.
Does the windows narrator mean every windows readable ebook is an audio file?
Do the blind deserve to be fined because they need to process ebook data with a different mechanism?
Let’s try another way of looking at it.
Say I had a bolt that wasn’t coming off and needed more leverage. The hardware store has a breaker bar (think ratchet/spanner with really long handle if you’re not hardware inclined) for $20. They have a normal ratchet for $5 and a metal water pipe I could slip over the ratchet handle for $4.
I buy the normal ratchet and the pipe. Slip the pipe over the ratchet handle making it much longer and giving me extra leverage needed to loosen the bolt.
I gave the hardware store a total of $9, but using a process on my end got the benefit of a $20 dollar tool.
Have I cheated the store out of $11 dollars? Using the logic if DRM fans; yes I have.
Which is silly.
This is in response to mangeorge
Loss of income sucks to be sure, but lots of jobs have been obsoleted in the past, and lots more will be obsoleted in the future. Adapt, etc. However, the point I was trying to make was that live human being readers can understand the content of what they’re reading and inflect it with emphasis and emotion appropriately. This is really advanced shit for a computer, and won’t be happening any time soon in TTS. This also makes reading a book a creative process in its own right, as there are innumerable possible interpretations of a given piece of text. TTS is not a creative process, it’s a mechanical transformation.
Throughout this thread I have been amazed that people who are apparently authors don’t understand this distinction, or think that it’s a distinction without a difference.
Then Amazon isn’t violating any agreements with the text-to-speech feature.
Look, this is really simple. Either Amazon has the right to distribute works in its eBook format, or it doesn’t.
“Aha! You said eBook; therefore, I can do anything so long as I call it an eBook.” It doesn’t work that way. Evidence of what both parties believed that eBooks were capable of is relevant. As Mervyn said, if Amazon hasn’t bargained for the right to distribute an audiobook, it can’t get around that by saying, “Oops, I forgot to tell you that if you press a button, this becomes an audiobook.”
Tao, your example is 100 percent irrelevant. A wrench is not a creative work. There is no author and no one who holds the exclusive right to prepare derivative works. Anyone can make and sell a wrench and buyers can do what they want with it.
Gorsnak, no one is saying that a computerized “reading” of the work is of the same quality as a trained actor’s reading of the work. However, there are three considerations:
- Some consumers might be satisfied to accept the lower quality in exchange for the lower price.
- It’s the author’s right to decide whether a lower quality audiobook will be distributed and under what conditions.
- Computerized readings will continue to improve and their quality will continue to approach the quality of a professional actor’s reading.
I haven’t seen someone on the side of the authors refute this. I think it’s an excellent argument in favor of Amazon that bears repeating.
That’s wonderful. Amazon is not distributing an audiobook. Amazon, in fact, is not distributing any book in any new format. Amazon is not distributing any new derived work that haven’t been distributing all along.
The question is simple. Does Amazon have the right to distribute that derived work, or not?
This is the nub of the dispute – what right did Amazon bargain for compared to what its doing. This is exactly the question that will be adjudicated. If it were so simple, no dispute would have arisen.
Kindle + ebook text version of a book = what Amazon was contracted to sell to users.
Kindle + ebook text version of a book + the ability to play an audio copy of the book != what Amazon was contracted to sell.
The kicker in this is whether or not a mechanical reading is a derived work. I am betting that this will end up in court and that it is going to get ugly. For books and music.
Presently there is software that will read midi files and produce a work that is as (almost as) good as human musicians. Linky. Check a couple of those out. They are impressive. In fact that software is on my buy list.
Now, under the player piano rule that the Supreme Court decided on a long time ago “that the perforated rolls of music used in player pianos did not constitute reproductions of the musical work”. Congress stepped in and changed the laws so that the creators of musical works would be compensated for their efforts even if the music was played on a player piano. I’m betting that the SC would rule the same way regarding midi files and playback software and they’ll probably go the same way with TTS. There is every probability that the text to speech feature will improve to a point where it is indistinguishable from real actors. (In fact, I am going to go bug a couple programmer* friends of mine because I think I figured out a slick way to vastly improve the text to speech.) My bet is that before that happens Congress will step in to arrange some sort of compensation for the authors. Either that or authors will start licensing their material to exclude TTS.
Slee
*I’m a network guy, not a programmer but I have a freaking great idea about this.
The point of copyright is artificial scarcity on production, especially in this digital age when production of copies is free (as in free beer), to provide a way for authors to sell their work without having to compete with free copies.
The fact remains though. An ebook is an item. If I buy a car I can pretty much tweak, retool, and trick out that car anyway I want.
If I buy a fruit I can eat it, wear it for a hat, throw it at my cousin, use it for sexual gratification, whatever I want to do with that fruit.
But with ebooks I’m now told, even though I bought my copy legally, and won’t make any copies for anyone else, that I can be arbitrarily restricted in what I can or can’t do with it.
Please explain why my personal copy of an ebook, that won’t be copied and given to anyone else, ought to be any different then a wrench. I can tinker with a wrench, why can’t I tinker with an ebook?
Also since TTS is a very important tool for the visual impaired do you think it’s right that they’re effectively fined for their disability?
Does this mean that Amazon would be forbidden from selling a scan/OCR/TTS device along with printed versions of books? What if Sony markets the device instead of Amazon? Do you seriously believe that such a device would be found to be infringing?
If not, how is it any different from the Kindle II?
As discussed a couple pages back, in the player piano case composers were not being compensated at all for the perforated rolls that played their songs. It would be analogous if the Supreme Court had ruled that the data files comprising ebooks didn’t constitute a copy of the print work. That is not the case, however. ebooks are licensed copies, with royalties remitted to the copyright holder.
Regarding the TTS issue, though, is Amazon like someone making holes in paper, or is Amazon like someone making a hole-in-paper-making machine?
-FrL
I have a question the answer to which may allow me to make a certain argument, but I don’t want to try to make the argument til I know the answer to the question.
The question is, suppose I take the text of a new book, remove every fourth letter, take away all the spaces, and then distribute copies of the result. Is that a “derivative work?” Will I thereby have infringed copyright?
I’m wondering here about the distinction between manipulation of text and manipulation of artistic work. I’m wondering what distinction, if any, is made legally between these two kinds of manipulation.
-FrL-
Come on, we’re all friends here. I"m dying to hear your idea.
-FrL-
Neither. It’s like if you made a new kind of player piano read the holes-on-paper that already exists, but instead of playing a note for every hole it played a blinking light. Would this light show be a new piece of work requiring a separate license?
I really don’t see how it could be. The holes on paper (digital information) stays the same. So, it’s the same thing.
What matters is the result. What would your resulting text be good for? Would anyone want it? Why would they want it? What would they do with it? Would there be any way to perceive the result that would somehow jibe with what happens when you perceive the original work? Would it interfere with the demand of something that the author is selling?
I know you’ve got some other agenda, but this is not at all relevant. Nobody is distributing new information. They are distributing the same old 0’s and 1’s, but with a new way to read it.
A better analogy is that you take the text of a book, apply white out over every fourth letter, and then read it in the comfort of your own home. Should the white out company be responsible for this “new work”?