STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[afa]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

And that raises a few interesting questions: Since it wasn't available in eBook form, did the first person that scanned the book in order to create an electronic copy, break/violate the "DRM" of their paper book?

Since the D in DRM stands for Digital, I think it's safe to say the answer to that question is "No".

Since no eBook sales were lost, on account of them not being offered, is it still wrong to convert the books to a format easier for the owner to use?

From what I understand, the answer is "No" again. Much like the older issues of recording something on VHS or converting your Audio CD to MP3, this likely comes under the umbrella of 'fair use'. The key aspect, of course, being the part about them not distributing such files.

And if that was wrong, where does that leave the text-to-speak features of so many eReading devices today?

If I remember correctly, there was some issue some time ago about publishers complaining about the Kindle's text-to-speech function, as they felt it violated their rights on Audiobooks (which are generally considered a platform distinct from both paper and ebooks). Don't remember what happened about that.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by afa

If I remember correctly, there was some issue some time ago about publishers complaining about the Kindle's text-to-speech function, as they felt it violated their rights on Audiobooks (which are generally considered a platform distinct from both paper and ebooks). Don't remember what happened about that.

Publishers can now choose whether text-to-speech is enabled in the books they publish at Amazon.

[Kevin8or]

Is the text-to-speech feature good enough to threaten audiobooks? The last time I heard text-to-speech, the speech was awkward. Tone, emphasis, rythym, etc., sounded wrong. Robotic. It's why I haven't tried text-to-speech functions in many years.

Hmm. [Kevin8or looks for his Kindle to turn on text-to-speech.]

Edit: Better than I remembered but still not something I'd want to hear for an extended period of time.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

Is the text-to-speech feature good enough to threaten audiobooks? [...]

Edit: Better than I remembered but still not something I'd want to hear for an extended period of time.

Yes, the current text to speech isn't something one would choose over a well recorded audiobook. I suspect the publishers are looking ahead to when text to speech becomes much more natural.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

Is the text-to-speech feature good enough to threaten audiobooks? The last time I heard text-to-speech, the speech was awkward. Tone, emphasis, rythym, etc., sounded wrong. Robotic. It's why I haven't tried text-to-speech functions in many years.

Hmm. [Kevin8or looks for his Kindle to turn on text-to-speech.]

Edit: Better than I remembered but still not something I'd want to hear for an extended period of time.

I tried it once.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by afa

Since the D in DRM stands for Digital, I think it's safe to say the answer to that question is "No".

User License Agreement then Mainly, would it be Fair Use, or violation of copyright?

Originally Posted by afa

From what I understand, the answer is "No" again. Much like the older issues of recording something on VHS or converting your Audio CD to MP3, this likely comes under the umbrella of 'fair use'. The key aspect, of course, being the part about them not distributing such files.

Good point, and that would make all the difference. If the conversion from paper to digital format was done for the owner's own benefit, and with no intention of distributing, then what they did would indeed be Fair Use. Distributing the digital copy on the other hand, is entirely different.

Here's the next step in the thought-experiment then. Would it have been okay to give digital copies to someone who has already purchased printed copies of the same book?

[ekster]

Originally Posted by afa

From what I understand, the answer is "No" again. Much like the older issues of recording something on VHS or converting your Audio CD to MP3, this likely comes under the umbrella of 'fair use'. The key aspect, of course, being the part about them not distributing such files.

Unfortunately, this 'fair use' policy is quickly disappearing. Here in Canada, breaking a lock on anything for whatever reason is going to become illegal very soon.

People will no longer be able to break a digital lock to buy an ebook on amazon and turn it into an epub, or buy a DVD and create a digital file to use on your home network, etc., even if they have zero intentions of sharing or selling, and just want to use it for themselves only.

Like I said before, the corporations will keep on pushing and pushing till someone says no. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ekster

Unfortunately, this 'fair use' policy is quickly disappearing. Here in Canada, breaking a lock on anything for whatever reason is going to become illegal very soon.

People will no longer be able to break a digital lock to buy an ebook on amazon and turn it into an epub, or buy a DVD and create a digital file to use on your home network, etc., even if they have zero intentions of sharing or selling, and just want to use it for themselves only.

Like I said before, the corporations will keep on pushing and pushing till someone says no. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

Well, if you do it in the privacy of your own home, how will they ever know about it? Besides, such overly restrictive laws may well be ruled unconstitutional by a high court later.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I tried it once.

neospeech is pretty good but I doubt any ebook maker is going to use that processor-heavy platform.
http://www.neospeech.com/

i've heard others that are so good they could almost pass a Turing test (in terms of the inflection and voice, not the computing).

It won't be long before that technology too rises to the level of being better than what a human could do.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Catlady

In my case, it means that I realized loaning books and then worrying about them and how or when or if they would be returned, was something that could be damaging to a friendship, and therefore it was something I should avoid doing. It has nothing to do with the behavior of others or with my expectations of their behavior--it's my own obsessive reaction that I am controlling by changing my own behavior. If it makes me nuts to lend a book, I won't lend the book. Simple.

I shared books with my brothers since I learned how to read, and then I shared books with my friends. I never worried about the condition of the books because all the people that I know that I interested in reading take good care of books and return them when they are done.

But in your case wouldn't ebooks be independent of the causes that made you worry about lending pbooks?

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I shared books with my brothers since I learned how to read, and then I shared books with my friends. I never worried about the condition of the books because all the people that I know that I interested in reading take good care of books and return them when they are done.

But in your case wouldn't ebooks be independent of the causes that made you worry about lending pbooks?

Sil_lis, the truth is that unlike you and I there are people so worried about "things," even books, that they lose track of the important things, like people, like friends, like relatives. It is a sad commentary on this age of materialism. Very sad.

Their consolation is that even though they don't usually know where the people in their lives went, they certainly know where each and every one of their books is.

[ScalyFreak]

I thought we were supposed to stop with the personal attacks?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I thought we were supposed to stop with the personal attacks?

Ahhh, is he still trying to pump up his own self-esteem?

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I thought we were supposed to stop with the personal attacks?

You are right. I shouldn't have quoted that (NOW) un-named person, and then spoken about the proper way to behave toward people. Some people might think poorly of that person.

I removed that part of the post.

I guess it comes down to we shouldn't even let people attack themselves.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I thought we were supposed to stop with the personal attacks?

^^This^^

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Ahhh, is he still trying to pump up his own self-esteem?

^^ and This ^^

and he's still garbling and confusing apples and oranges and bananas and doesn't know the difference in helping and sharing.