May 13, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Rights for Data
May 14, 2009 at 6:02 am
By the reasoning presented, you therefore believe that a blind person who has your book (or article) read to them, is thus enjoying "an alternate production" of your work and thus you should be paid there too? Or would you offer a discount because the person cannot actually read your book with their eyes?
This entire 'content debate' has become ridiculous. Do you know that technically, when you go to your local bar or pub and hear a band play someone else's song, they are supposed to be paying royalties for the performance of that song. Guess how many actually pay? Less than 1% because obviously, the concept is ridiculous - we would need an army of 'content police' to be marching into clubs, bars, pubs, weddings, and any such gathering, enforcing royalty payments.
And how about this? Suppose YOU write a book or article that offends ME in some way!!! Can I then sue you for damages because I accidentally read it before I knew it was going to offend me? After all, the 'content' you included was there to make you money, and now that it has caused me huge harm :w00t: why shouldn't I be able to sue your pants off!!!
Here's our problem plain and simple - for decades now we have invented technology, released it, and then lost all common sense in the bargain. My home state announced a couple weeks ago that there is a "marked rise" in rear-end collisions due to youngsters texting while they are driving. What a great use of technology huh?!?!? People sending non-critical downright stupid messages, while they crash into other drivers - wow, great use of high tech.
Frankly, I think if we graphed it - we would find that good old common sense that used to make this country great, has dropped in direct proportion to these technologies we invent, and then wind up killing people over, whining over, and complicating life over.
And this is "progress"? Yeah, backwards. And since cable companies are now pushing hard to charge for content delivery - well, this internet sure was a great idea wasn't it. Yeah, about as good an idea as the Hindenburg.
May 14, 2009 at 6:17 am
So the authors want me to pay for rights to read a book on a Kindle, and then pay more to have the Kindle read the book to me? That's ridiculous. If I buy a book, I am not going to pay extra to get the audio version. Conversely, if I buy an audio book, I am not going to buy the paper copy. The authors are trying to double dip here.
May 14, 2009 at 6:52 am
Universal Design people, Universal Design. The written word should be equally accessible to ALL people. Text to Speech technology is not just for the convenience of fully abled people but has completely revolutionized "reading" for a large population of people with physical and learning disabilities. People who are blind or who have any one of a long list a learning disabilities are finally able to enjoy the written word and folks want to charge those individuals more because the words are being read using technology. It's completely unfair. I would say that if this feature is not available free of charge, they would be opening themselves up to huge law suits under Section 508 of the Disabilities Act[/url].
May 14, 2009 at 7:15 am
Text-to-speech is a function of the device and not of the book. There should be no extra charge just because the device has that capability. An audio book is different. There should be a charge for that.
Steve, do you find the Kindle to be worth the cost? I was thinking that for the price, I'd want color. The Kindle II has a battery that is not replaceable. That's a deal breaker for me, I think.
May 14, 2009 at 7:29 am
cherylf (5/14/2009)
Universal Design people, Universal Design. The written word should be equally accessible to ALL people. Text to Speech technology is not just for the convenience of fully abled people but has completely revolutionized "reading" for a large population of people with physical and learning disabilities. People who are blind or who have any one of a long list a learning disabilities are finally able to enjoy the written word and folks want to charge those individuals more because the words are being read using technology. It's completely unfair. I would say that if this feature is not available free of charge, they would be opening themselves up to huge law suits under Section 508 of the Disabilities Act[/url].
That seems plausible, though I have no expertise to comment on the law in question.
I happen to agree that in this case, the text-to-speech feature does not violate copyright laws. I think this part of the article stated it best:
Jonathan Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School, said he doesn't see how the speech feature violates copyright law if no recorded copy of the book is created. Book publishers often license audio books separately than the text versions.
"The only right really that might be implicated is the so-called public performance," Zittrain said. "But what I want the thing to do is to read to me in the car. I don't see a copy being made so I don't see how this can be Amazon's problem."
What seems to be the danger, though, is that text-to-speech will eventually obviate the need for audiobooks (and the corresponding separate audiobook license revenue). But that is a different problem, sort of like making an electric light bulb in the shape of a candle. It's really about an economic effect of technology and obsolescence.
But as long as people keep getting the recorded/encoded copies of these works via peer-to-peer networks and other avenues of getting around paying the listed price, I bet these lawsuits will continue to happen. It's one thing to read aloud a book you have bought. It is another to play a copy of an audio recording of the text-to-speech obtained from a file-sharing site without paying for the book. For better or worse, the latter activity enables people to get the books for free, which obviously is not in the best interests of the book publishers. So the battles over these contested areas of legal terrain will probably go on for some time to come.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
May 14, 2009 at 7:39 am
A couple of comments. First, I believe performing artists do pay royalties on the songs they perform in public. Granted it may not be 100%, but I suspect it is at a far higher rate than you might imagine. I believe the royalties are paid through an annual fee or "membership" to an organization (ASCAP??).
Second, if the "oral" version of a book is created via a text to speech translator, I would view that as an "alternative form" of reading by the end user. Thus, Kindle "reading" the book to me is no different than having my friend or wife read it to me if I am blind.
However, if the "oral" version is created by recording the writer, in their own voice, that is a different issue. In that case, the writer is in fact, also a "performer", and should receive appropriate payment for the "performance of reading" just as an actor that does a voiceover for a cartoon or commercial would be paid.
Perhaps the best solution is for the writer to come to an agreement with the publisher before publication of the book.
May 14, 2009 at 8:07 am
IMHO I don't feel that there is a need for or obligation to pay extra if the text is read using text to speech software. You are still using the original article, and the delivery of this article is not what I call nice to listen to. With an audio book the text is spoken by a professional who puts some of his/her own into it. This is a totally other form of hearing the text and that should be separately paid.
May 14, 2009 at 8:28 am
Question, why is it called "Common Sense" when it appears to be so uncommon today?
May 14, 2009 at 9:27 am
bob.willsie (5/14/2009)
...Second, if the "oral" version of a book is created via a text to speech translator, I would view that as an "alternative form" of reading by the end user. Thus, Kindle "reading" the book to me is no different than having my friend or wife read it to me if I am blind.
However, if the "oral" version is created by recording the writer, in their own voice, that is a different issue. In that case, the writer is in fact, also a "performer", and should receive appropriate payment for the "performance of reading" just as an actor that does a voiceover for a cartoon or commercial would be paid.
Perhaps the best solution is for the writer to come to an agreement with the publisher before publication of the book.
In this case, that would make the Kindle the "performer" since it is doing the reading. If a book publisher expects to be compensated for both the written and read versions, shouldn't they also be responsible for compensating both the author that wrote the material AND the Kindle for its text-to-speech "performance"?
May 14, 2009 at 9:35 am
James Rochez (5/14/2009)
bob.willsie (5/14/2009)
...Second, if the "oral" version of a book is created via a text to speech translator, I would view that as an "alternative form" of reading by the end user. Thus, Kindle "reading" the book to me is no different than having my friend or wife read it to me if I am blind.
However, if the "oral" version is created by recording the writer, in their own voice, that is a different issue. In that case, the writer is in fact, also a "performer", and should receive appropriate payment for the "performance of reading" just as an actor that does a voiceover for a cartoon or commercial would be paid.
Perhaps the best solution is for the writer to come to an agreement with the publisher before publication of the book.
In this case, that would make the Kindle the "performer" since it is doing the reading. If a book publisher expects to be compensated for both the written and read versions, shouldn't they also be responsible for compensating both the author that wrote the material AND the Kindle for its text-to-speech "performance"?
I think the issue is the recording more than the initial speech. There is no recording of the Kindle performance, as I understand it. It's just that the technology enables the machine to read out loud similar to the way a human would read the text. The quotation I posted earlier addresses the issue that this is not a public "performance" by the Kindle in cases where a person is listening in their home, car, etc.
With an audiobook, however, there is a recording regardless of where the person is listening. The public part (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) is that the recording is made with the express purpose of making many copies to sell to the public as an alternative version of the book. That is, buy the print "recording" or the audio "recording," or buy both. In that case, the reading of the book is analogous to a video image of someone acting in a movie.
Are you suggesting that book publishers shouldn't be paid for the audiobooks they publish? I'm not clear.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
May 14, 2009 at 9:47 am
I may not have presented my argument well.
The writers organizations (or some of them) feel that the text-to-speech feature is a "performance" and that right is not granted. If you want the audio copy of the book, you should pay for that separately.
I feel that this is incorrect. I believe that if an audio book is produced, that performer should be paid, as should the writer, but that is separate from the written book. HOWEVER, a text-to-speech performance, which is generated by technology, SHOULD NOT cost more money.
Moreover, I am extremely disappointed that Amazon disabled this feature in the Kindle 2.
My wife believes that text to speech does rob the authors of some revenue, and potentially performers. She sees it as the writer's organization. I had to stop talking about it because I was frustrated with her about it.
I think this is ridiculous, and I am worried that it will get extended to other types of data. What if our sales data loses the right for us to mail to someone? That's not a great example, but I'm worried what rights lawyers might come up with.
May 14, 2009 at 9:50 am
James Rochez (5/14/2009)
In this case, that would make the Kindle the "performer" since it is doing the reading. If a book publisher expects to be compensated for both the written and read versions, shouldn't they also be responsible for compensating both the author that wrote the material AND the Kindle for its text-to-speech "performance"?
I think this is the best point so far! Cheers, James.
😎 Kate The Great :w00t:
If you don't have time to do it right the first time, where will you find time to do it again?
May 14, 2009 at 9:51 am
blandry (5/14/2009)
Do you know that technically, when you go to your local bar or pub and hear a band play someone else's song, they are supposed to be paying royalties for the performance of that song. Guess how many actually pay?
Most bars/clubs/restaurants pay ASCAP a fee for the use of music. It varies if you're a restaurant (background music), a nightclub/bar with dancing, and someone that has live music. The fees are there to be distributed to artists. How they distribute stuff, I have no idea, and I bet that this makes record companies money and not much for artists.
But in any case, if you don't pay it, and they catch you, it's a big deal. They easily scan yellow pages (or used to) for bars, and compare with their licensees. They can easily sue you for this.
I believe that this covers performances as when there's live music, there isn't recorded music. If you have bands performing originals, they don't know, and the bar ends up paying more than they need to.
May 14, 2009 at 9:58 am
Steve Jones - Editor (5/14/2009)
I may not have presented my argument well.The writers organizations (or some of them) feel that the text-to-speech feature is a "performance" and that right is not granted. If you want the audio copy of the book, you should pay for that separately.
I feel that this is incorrect. I believe that if an audio book is produced, that performer should be paid, as should the writer, but that is separate from the written book. HOWEVER, a text-to-speech performance, which is generated by technology, SHOULD NOT cost more money.
Moreover, I am extremely disappointed that Amazon disabled this feature in the Kindle 2.
My wife believes that text to speech does rob the authors of some revenue, and potentially performers. She sees it as the writer's organization. I had to stop talking about it because I was frustrated with her about it.
I think this is ridiculous, and I am worried that it will get extended to other types of data. What if our sales data loses the right for us to mail to someone? That's not a great example, but I'm worried what rights lawyers might come up with.
I agree with everything you said, Steve, and I think you were clear. However, I think the underlying issue is murky and can be misinterpreted - that the text-to-speech feature has the potential to render audiobooks obsolete. Although I think at the present time, the market may see people decide whether they like the sound of the Kindle "voice" enough to forgo paying for a human-performed audiobook.
But I see where your wife is coming from. Performers are sure to start losing revenue with competition from the Kindle. Just like drivers of horse-drawn carts started to lose revenue with the advent of the car, and candle makers started to lose revenue with the advent of electric lights.
The performers and publishers may not be on strong legal footing with the current lawsuit, and it may be easy to poke fun at the attempted arguments in this case, but the writing is on the wall, so to speak. Text-to-speech will eventually become good enough to rival human performance, at which point no one will buy audiobooks if text-to-speech is free, unless they have a soft spot for it. And how long do you think it will be - if it hasn't been done already - before someone has a tool to record the Kindle text-to-speech output and post it to file-sharing sites?
Those are the real threats to audio revenue that lie behind the current lawsuits, however frivolous they may or may not be.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 32 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply