Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
I think the publishers are going to win this one. Audio and text are licensed separately. Too bad, I think it would be a nice featre
|
Not necessarily.
It turns out Audible contracts have the same (court-approved) forward compatibility that HarperCollins put into the deal for JULIE OF THE WOLVES.
A lot of added stuff on the subject has been coming out in the last few days.
See this:
https://www.acx.com/help/audiobook-l...ment/201481900
Notably exclusive deals:
Quote:
Section 2.1.:
You grant Audible the exclusive license to use, reproduce, display, market, sell and distribute the Audiobook throughout the Territory in all formats now known or hereafter invented from the date you accept this Agreement until the date that is 7 years from such date (such 7 year period, the “Initial Distribution Period”).
|
And. On non exclusive deals:
Quote:
You grant Audible the non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, display, market, sell and distribute the Audiobook throughout the Territory in all formats now known or hereafter invented from the date you accept this Agreement until the date that is 7 years from such date (such 7 year period, the “Initial Distribution Period”).
|
The contract also covers editing, compression, and other changes to the licensed file:
Quote:
Right to Edit. Audible may modify, reformat, encode, adapt and edit the Audiobook to make the Audiobook compatible with the Audible service, including but not limited to by (a) adding Audible’s standard intro and outro, and (b) removing flaws or audio elements that are, in Audible’s judgment, incompatible or inconsistent with the Audible service (e.g., playback instructions, microphone bumps, distortion, ambient sound, etc.).
|
The bone of contention comes down to whether transcription is a modification/reformating of a sound file. (Note that the captions are produced from the licensed audio file--not an ebook or scanned pbook--and only distributed with the licensed audio file, not as a separate product. That would definitely be a no-no.)
And then there is the legal definition of a "caption" as a part of an audio file:
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides...ing-television
And captioning is *required* by various laws. Such as this one:
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides...ility-act-cvaa
Until now, audiobooks were apparently covered by the "feasibility" clause but Audible just blew that to heck.
This is a marketing pitch but it is right that captioning is becoming ubiquitous:
https://cielo24.com/2019/07/video-ca...iption-trends/
So Audible may be heavy handedly taking a page out of BPH practices but they seem to be on defensible legal ground.
It's not a given they'll be blocked.
(The things you find by internet search.
)