US Copyright Office ruled that jail breaking is FAIR USE.

[DMSmillie]

Originally Posted by jlmwrite

Actually it does, albeit under very limited circumstances. Something about if an ebook doesn't have text-to-speech features enabled, you can bypass the DRM.

I believe that's a disability access thing, primarily aimed at those with a disability that means they can't access a book except by using text-to-speech...

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

I believe that's a disability access thing, primarily aimed at those with a disability that means they can't access a book except by using text-to-speech...

And further that there is no available source of audio book available for that particular book. If there is then you can't break DRM to use text-to-speech.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

And further that there is no available source of audio book available for that particular book. If there is then you can't break DRM to use text-to-speech.

Yep.

It's also an obscene exception to the exception, IMO.

There is way too big a difference in both the user's experience and publisher's investment between TTS and audio books to justify that.

Heck, I think it should be illegal for them to use drm to disable TTS to begin with.... Geeeze, it's not as if they've done anything to deserve a dime for it. We want to pay for the book to be read out loud to us by something or someone else (without some performer's interpreting of things for us - i hate that)? Well, that's our business - not theirs.

Sorry for the rant, but just... argh. Of all things publishers do to make me distrust their sense of fair dealing and willingness to abuse DRM, the disabling of TTS tops the list.

The good news is that the last thing on earth they want is the nasty publicity of taking a blind or ill person to court for this (or half the rest of the dcma). It would explode the whole sorry deal they have going.

What passes in a lobby-influenced group of congress critters or bureaucrats is not the same as what will stand the scrutiny of a courtroom.

(Whew. That ought to do for my workout of the day. )

[queentess]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

And further that there is no available source of audio book available for that particular book. If there is then you can't break DRM to use text-to-speech.

If there's an audiobook, you also can't have someone read the book out loud to you.

[DMSmillie]

Originally Posted by Piper_

Yep.
It's also an obscene exception to the exception, IMO.
There is way too big a difference in both the user's experience and publisher's investment between TTS and audio books to justify that.

Totally agree.

Originally Posted by Piper_

Heck, I think it should be illegal for them to use drm to disable TTS to begin with....

I suspect the disabling of TTS is a "side effect" of the copy protection that DRM slaps on an ebook. It was a problem with PDFs several years ago - if it was created with security enabled, to prevent unauthorised copying of the text content, that disabled the ability of screen readers and other access software to access the content, making it impossible for a blind person to access it (the level at which screen reader software needed to access the content was the same level of access that was locked by the security feature). Adobe took a while, but they eventually sorted that out. Could be something similar going on with ebook DRM.

[snipenekkid]

next thing we know is publishers will want extra for "story time" at the library or even at the bookshops.

I do, however see the fainest glimmer of why the publishers are a-g'in TTS, the whole world of audiobooks has exploded over the past 5-10 years and TBH the TTS on the Kindle 2 and above is pretty danged good. Of course it's also pretty darned funny at times as well when it butchers a word or twenty! haha!

I am glad Amazon did stick to their guns on the TTS thing to the best of their ability. Had they not and had whatever government agency handles it here in the US, or maybe it was just a college that tested the DX's. But they stated the whole "...can't use them because they do not allow visually impaired students access to the content" or some such statement. I mention it NOT AS A DEBATE but rather to illustrate the point Piper made about not wanting to get dressed-down in a public forum and the media if something like that ever went to court. They might as well be hanging out "drowning puppies" with some guy named Vick who plays football. A BIT OF HYPERBOLE, OK??!!{clarification added for the humor impaired}

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

Totally agree.


I suspect the disabling of TTS is a "side effect" of the copy protection that DRM slaps on an ebook. It was a problem with PDFs several years ago - if it was created with security enabled, to prevent unauthorised copying of the text content, that disabled the ability of screen readers and other access software to access the content, making it impossible for a blind person to access it (the level at which screen reader software needed to access the content was the same level of access that was locked by the security feature). Adobe took a while, but they eventually sorted that out. Could be something similar going on with ebook DRM.

Unfortunately, it's not that. It's actually a flag they have to go out of their way to specify to disable TTS. TTS works by default.
They fought to be able to disable TTS, and they won.

Thankfully, there are a ton of DRMd books that haven't had TTS disabled. I'm dopey on meds today - but .... was it the publisher who didn't join the big 5? Random House?
Anyhow, they made the biggest stink, and I think disabling tts is their policy, though I thought I saw one of their imprints the other day that wasn't disabled.

The guilt should also be shared by the "union" or whatever the group is called that read audiobooks. They all got together and fought tts too. A pox on them all, I say.

[DMSmillie]

Originally Posted by Piper_

Unfortunately, it's not that. It's actually a flag they have to go out of their way to specify to disable TTS. TTS works by default.
They fought to be able to disable TTS, and they won.

In that case, a pox on them indeed.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Piper_

The guilt should also be shared by the "union" or whatever the group is called that read audiobooks. They all got together and fought tts too. A pox on them all, I say.

and larryn-g'eye-tus too.