Disabling text-to-speech (TTS) triggers DMCA exemption: YOU ARE ALLOWED TO REMOVE DRM

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by kamm

That's not an ebook, sorry.

Nobody said it was. The claim is that removing DRM is allowed if there is not an audio book available. It said nothing about an audio book being an eBook. It was a joke anyway.

Dale

[sirbruce]

Well, it turns out that clause 4. may not apply because those works *are* available in a TTS-enabled format... if you can provide proof that you're blind or visually impaired. Here's a repost from the Amazon Kindle forums:

Initial post: May 18, 2009 3:33 PM PDT
Bufo Calvin says:
With the actual implementation of blocking text-to-speech (TTS), I wanted a clarification from Random House. I found their response very interesting, and although probably unsatisfying to some, better than I thought it might be.

This was my e-mail to them on May 17, 2009 (I apologize for the formatting...it is pretty much the way it came back from their on-line form):

=================================
Question/Comment: I am a customer of Random House who is currently boycotting the company over the decision to block text-to-speech access in e-books. I have also written an article on the controversy. It is my belief that is it acceptable for Random House to block the text-to-speech access in the Kindle editions, provided that 'read aloud' is enabled in another version of the e-book. I base this partially on the Copyright Office statement 37 CFR Part 201 (Docket No. RM 2002-4E), which is available here: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/f...tice-final.pdf ; On page 13, the issue of 'read aloud' is discussed. This is a small excerpt from this government document:
===============
'By using digital rights management tools that implicate access controls, publishers of ebooks can disable the read-aloud function of an ebook and may prevent access to a work in ebook form by means of screen reader software. The record indicates that many ebooks are distributed with these two functions disabled. The disabling of these functions is alleged to prevent the blind and visually impaired from engaging in particular noninfringing uses such as private performance, and to prevent access to these works by blind and visually impaired users altogether. The uses that such persons make by using the "read-aloud" function and screen readers are noninfringing, and are likely to be the most reasonable means of meaningful access for such persons to works that are published in ebook format. To be included in the exempted class, a literary work must exist in ebook format. Moreover, the exemption is not available if any existing edition of the work permits the "readaloud" function or is screen reader-enabled. Thus, a publisher may avoid subjecting any of its works to this exemption simply by ensuring that for each of its works published in ebook form, an edition exists which is accessible to the blind and visually impaired in at least one of these two ways.' ================

Based on my research, it is acceptable for Random House to block the text-to-speech in the Kindle version, only if there exists another e-book version in which 'read aloud' is available. My question, then, is simple. How can a disabled person obtain the version of (for example) The Stand or Dreams from My Father that allows 'read aloud access'? If you have made equivalent versions available to the disabled with this feature enabled, I would stop boycotting. The access of the disabled is my primary focus in this case. Thank you for taking the time to address my concern. I plan to share the answer with others who are interested in this issue. My hope is that this is resolved in a satisfactory way for all involved, and I can go back to buying books from Random House.

===========================================

This is the response I received on May 18, 2009:

===========================================

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for contacting Random House and for your interest in our publications. The text to speech feature on our eBook titles is currently disabled. This is an issue that involves author's rights and royalties as well as the rights and royalties of the narrators of our audiobook titles and is currently under study. Please be assured that we will consider your feedback regarding this matter. In the meantime, if you are a student with a disability you may contact our Alternative Texts department by email at alternativetext@randomhouse.com for assistance.

BOOKSHARE is a wonderful resource available for readers with print disabilities. Bookshare is an online library of digital books for people with print disabilities. It operates under an exception to U.S. copyright law which allows copyrighted digital books to be made available to people with qualifying disabilities. Bookshare does require individuals to register as a member and provide proof of disability to ensure that only qualified individuals use the service.

Please visit www.bookshare.org for more information.

Random House Consumer Services
===========================================
===========================================

So, I went to Bookshare, which operates under the Chaffee amendment, a legal decision that would allow them to make disabled-specific materials available without getting clearance from a publisher.

My understanding is that if an e-book from Random House is at Bookshare (whether or not Random House participated in putting there...and they may have), it would be acceptable under the Copyright Office guidelines for them to block the TTS in the Kindle edition.

I confirmed that the site had text-to-speech enabled versions. I began searching for books that I knew were listed as having the text-to-speech not enabled. I checked about 20, skipping around to different titles. All of them were available through Bookshare.

Then I hit one that wasn't. The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki (an excellent book, by the way). It is published by Anchor, which is an imprint of Doubleday, which is a publisher of Random House.

That may be a fluke, though. It's possible that specific book is available from some other agency in a TTS-enabled version.

This will be a problem for a lot of people: the site requires (properly, under the Chaffee amendment) that users provide a proof of disability. Again, I think this is proper: the exception only allows the books to be made available to the disabled.

If, therefore, a Random House book is available through Bookshare, I think they have satisfied the Copyright Office guidelines. That means I would be denied text-to-speech (not having a qualifying disability) for Random House titles, which I wouldn't like, but would feel it was their decision. I think it's a bad decision, by the way, but it isn't illegal to make a bad business decision.

This may also explain the spotty nature of the blocked titles. Random House, which I would expect to have an excellent legal department, may have decided only to disable those where an enabled version is available from Bookshare (or another agency).

I need to study this more, but I thought I would share the preliminary exchange.

I also thank Random House for responding to my question.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Well, it turns out that clause 4. may not apply because those works *are* available in a TTS-enabled format... if you can provide proof that you're blind or visually impaired. Here's a repost from the Amazon Kindle forums:

That is nonsense, on many levels.

First, these parasites a Random House think we are totally stupid and we will take their interpretation over the word of the law - obviously we won't.
Secondly what the heck is proving? I wear glasses, that makes me visually impaired, even by the most rotten legislation these publishers ever bought.
Thirdly how the hell I am suppose to know about this? This is the first time I ever heard of this site.

Nonsense, as I said.

[kamm]

Another BS is the invocation of the CHafee amendment - DMCA is newer and has current exemptions, set to be renewed in October.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Well, it turns out that clause 4. may not apply because those works *are* available in a TTS-enabled format... if you can provide proof that you're blind or visually impaired. Here's a repost from the Amazon Kindle forums:

As has been stated repeatedly already, being blind or visually impaired are not requirements in order to qualify for the DMCA exceptions. That's very nice of them to provide alternative copies for people with those specific disabilities, but the law is written to be much broader than that. Amazon and Random House don't get to define what "adversely affected" means.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

As has been stated repeatedly already, being blind or visually impaired are not requirements in order to qualify for the DMCA exceptions. That's very nice of them to provide alternative copies for people with those specific disabilities, but the law is written to be much broader than that. Amazon and Random House don't get to define what "adversely affected" means.

Yes, yes they are.

[Acreo Aeneas]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I agree, if you're not visually impaired, you're on questionable ground. On the other hand, you can still be adversely affected by the disabling of TTS; indeed, Amazon markets TTS as a feature to everyone, not something specifically for the visually impaired.

Interesting how vague the wording is. So with that said, I'd be on questionable ground as well, though I can probably win a court case seeing how I need by bifocals (glasses) to see and without them (such has happened), I'm pretty much screwed when it comes to reading anything further than 2 inches away from my nose.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Yes, yes they are.

I have no idea, but would having eye surgery be enough? (even if it's a temporal effect).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Yes, yes they are.

You keep saying this, but are completely unable to provide anything to back it up. Please post a direct quote from the law with the words "blind", "visually impaired", or "disabled" highlighted in the text.

I'm sure you can't, because they don't exist.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You keep saying this, but are completely unable to provide anything to back it up. Please post a direct quote from the law with the words "blind", "visually impaired", or "disabled" highlighted in the text.

I'm sure you can't, because they don't exist.

Here:

(D) The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201

4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

This is a test of your critical thinking skills. Read the above quotes. Think about it until tomorrow, and then tell me why I am wrong.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Yes, yes they are.

NO, THEY ARE NOT. Stop spreading FALSE info, please.

As questionable it might be it is certainly not true as you claim.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Here:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201


http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

This is a test of your critical thinking skills. Read the above quotes. Think about it until tomorrow, and then tell me why I am wrong.

Well, apparently your critical READING skills are badly failing on your OWN test, let alone obviously being khm, amateur on reading legalese - if you claim something is written then it has to be written there otherwise your claim is FALSE.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, seriously...

You can claim that something is the intention of the law but then word your claim as such - an opinion.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by kamm

NO, THEY ARE NOT. Stop spreading FALSE info, please.

As questionable it might be it is certainly not true as you claim.

kamm, using bold print and full caps is the equivalent of shouting. You can make your point without them. Please stop.

Nate the great
moderator

[kamm]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

kamm, using bold print and full caps is the equivalent of shouting. You can make your point without them. Please stop.

Nate the great
moderator

It is also not true. THIS MIGHT BE SHOUTING but this is emphasis, nothing else.

Purpose of bolding is to make it jump out of the regular text, nothing else.

PS: I must have missed the section about restricted use of bolding in the rules...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Here:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201


http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

This is a test of your critical thinking skills. Read the above quotes. Think about it until tomorrow, and then tell me why I am wrong.

I didn't see the words "blind", "visually impaired", or "disabled" in either of the excerpts you quoted.