Author's Guild Executive Director Interview

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Are we going to see publishers and/or authors pulling eBook from Amazon until the TTS issue is solved or new contracts drawn up that allow the TTS in the K2 to be used?

Probably not, but who knows.

Well, the publishers have no incentive, because I'd guess in most cases they don't control the audio rights, so what do they care.

My guess: there'll be a lot of dickering about this with new contracts, but for existing contracts, people will stand by while the fur flies. That's more or less what happened with the Guild/Publishers/Google brouhaha, which ultimately ended with Google pledging some money to pay writers for their scanning of copyrighted books.

I don't think people are going to start amending contracts. I don't think there is any operation in the universe that is less efficient than the production of publishing contracts. That would probably be the final nail in the coffin of the economy.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I blogged on my talk with Aiken

Very informative post in the blog, though the one thing that I would take exception with is about audio being currently turned/on and off in ebooks.

That would be true if the books were in one (non-converted) drm'ed format, but otherwise it's just not true since you can extract the book to a text file and use a TTS engine - for example it is immaterial that a pdf has audio turned off since you can always extract the text if it's not drm'ed and these days pdf drm is smoke, the way lit or prc have been for a while.

Since my contention is that most e-books people have are not drm'ed (however they were obtained in first place), I think that argument is just RIAA silliness

The more cogent argument is the "convenience" one, the "channel" if you want, but considering that Audible is part of Amazon, why not think of the Kindle 2 TTS as free advertising for "real" audiobooks...

Regarding contracts and other legal stuff, it's an interesting issue but until it goes to court and precedent decisions are issued, I think that nobody truly knows if TTS is encompassed by audio-rights. There is a piece in Ars Technica discussing that and automatic translations here:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-copyright.ars

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by starrigger

As an ebook enthusiast, I instinctively share the sentiment about making ebooks more attractive. But...

You can't pretend that a thousand, or a million, legally binding contracts don't exist. And if the Guild did what you suggest, they would be aiding in an increasingly unambiguous violation of those contracts.

I don't think the answer to this question is simple at all.

(Purely as an aside, I'll note that most writers make little to nothing on ebook sales right now, and most don't even get audiobook contracts. So when people start talking about "greedy" authors, as some have at times during this discussion, I can only shake my head. The vast majority of writers can't earn anything even remotely approaching a living wage from their books, so there is an ongoing tension between trying to use new technologies to promote sales of their work and remaining vigilant to avoid being screwed out of their share of the money that does get earned.)

I expect that there were legally binding contracts around the rights for large print edition books. Are they going to go after Amazon because the Kindle allows you to change the font size?

I'm not suggesting it's easy to fix but if mistakes are made you don't try to change the world to accommodate the mistakes. You have to recognize that it was a mistake and stop doing it. It's like regional restrictions on ebook sales. It makes no sense when selling electronic media, it can't be enforced and does nothing but feed lawyers. Sooner or later you have to stop trying to fight it and sooner is easier then later. I just don't understand why he's so vocally fighting this losing battle.

I sure didn't intend to give the impression that I thought author's were greedy and I personally think they don't get sufficient compensation proportional to the total sales.

[legaleagll]

As an attorney I think I have a particular sensitivity to the doublespeak put forth by Aiken because I have done it for my own clients on many occasions. It is the situation where you have to put together an argument on an indefensible position without it appearing ludicrous at first blush. I think his problem is that all of his argument presupposes that the author has the right to limit what Amazon does with the book as it relates to a text to speech function. It is this fundamental flaw that means that regardless of how good text to speech it doesn't justify the position that it isn't permitted.

The biggest problem is that for a non-original derivative work to be considered copyrightable it must create a non-transitory copy of a work. What the Kindle and a computers text-to-speech program does is create a transitory copy at best. I would argue that it doesn't even create a copy, it simply applies its algorithmic functions to each individual written word and recreates them individually into spoken word. If it were to take the entire book, and create a separate mp3 file (which is what some programs actually offer) you might have an argument that you have created a non-transitory derivative work that is subject to copyright, but absent that I think the entire argument fails.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

Very informative post in the blog, though the one thing that I would take exception with is about audio being currently turned/on and off in ebooks.

That would be true if the books were in one (non-converted) drm'ed format, but otherwise it's just not true since you can extract the book to a text file and use a TTS engine - for example it is immaterial that a pdf has audio turned off since you can always extract the text if it's not drm'ed and these days pdf drm is smoke, the way lit or prc have been for a while.

Smoke to the sophisticated user. Not to the average user, who would have no clue how to remove drm. And would never think of extracting a book to a text file just to plug it into TTS software.

Since my contention is that most e-books people have are not drm'ed (however they were obtained in first place)

Why do you contend that? Leaving aside the public domain books, I mean. I'd guess most are drm'd--though that's only a guess.

The more cogent argument is the "convenience" one, the "channel" if you want, but considering that Audible is part of Amazon, why not think of the Kindle 2 TTS as free advertising for "real" audiobooks...

Well, that's the legal stuff, isn't it? What if I've licensed audio rights to a different company? I might even, as the author, want to treat the TTS exactly as you suggest. But if I've granted exclusive rights to sound reproduction to someone else...

Mind you, I don't know. I'm saying the answer isn't clear to me.

Regarding contracts and other legal stuff, it's an interesting issue but until it goes to court and precedent decisions are issued, I think that nobody truly knows if TTS is encompassed by audio-rights. There is a piece in Ars Technica discussing that and automatic translations here:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-copyright.ars

Thanks for the link. That looks very interesting, and I'll have to read it carefully when I have more time.

Speaking of which, I have got to stop posting these things and get some other work done!

[legaleagll]

After reading starrigger's blog entry, I think he presented a totally different position. Rather than relying on copyright, he suggests that there are existing contracts governing the use and rights of the author. Without having the ability to read the contracts, I wouldn't know whether they cover this eventuality, but I would absolutely say that they could put a provision in a contract with Amazon regarding what they are permitted to do with the work, regardless of copyright law, that could limit what they do with regard to text to speech. It is only his purporting to rely upon copyright that I think is the fatal flaw in the position as I have previously seen it articulated.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I expect that there were legally binding contracts around the rights for large print edition books. Are they going to go after Amazon because the Kindle allows you to change the font size?

Aren't you conflating print books with ebooks? I don't think that argument works.

I'm not suggesting it's easy to fix but if mistakes are made you don't try to change the world to accommodate the mistakes. You have to recognize that it was a mistake and stop doing it. It's like regional restrictions on ebook sales. It makes no sense when selling electronic media, it can't be enforced and does nothing but feed lawyers. Sooner or later you have to stop trying to fight it and sooner is easier then later. I just don't understand why he's so vocally fighting this losing battle.

Maybe it is a losing battle. You could well be right. But some people thought it was a losing battle when they took on Google. And some people thought it was a losing battle when the Writers Guild (screenwriters, a different org altogether) took on the studios for a piece of web and DVD profit.

I sure didn't intend to give the impression that I thought author's were greedy and I personally think they don't get sufficient compensation proportional to the total sales.

You didn't. I wasn't really referring to your post; it just reminded me of others.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Aren't you conflating print books with ebooks? I don't think that argument works.



Maybe it is a losing battle. You could well be right. But some people thought it was a losing battle when they took on Google. And some people thought it was a losing battle when the Writers Guild (screenwriters, a different org altogether) took on the studios for a piece of web and DVD profit.



You didn't. I wasn't really referring to your post; it just reminded me of others.

Didn't the Writer's Guild win only a token victory in the end, after many, many other employees on the sets losing their jobs in the process? I seem to remember that what they won didn't really amount to much. Something along the lines of a percentage of profits that still weren't manifest, and that percentage would be re-negotiated in 3 years time.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Aren't you conflating print books with ebooks? I don't think that argument works....

You kind of hit it: as leagleagll mentions above, the larger font size viewable on the Kindle is transitory, just like the text-to-speech option.

But a printed book or a tape are non-transitory.

Can't fight time.... Nor technology.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by legaleagll

After reading starrigger's blog entry, I think he presented a totally different position. Rather than relying on copyright, he suggests that there are existing contracts governing the use and rights of the author. Without having the ability to read the contracts, I wouldn't know whether they cover this eventuality, but I would absolutely say that they could put a provision in a contract with Amazon regarding what they are permitted to do with the work, regardless of copyright law, that could limit what they do with regard to text to speech. It is only his purporting to rely upon copyright that I think is the fatal flaw in the position as I have previously seen it articulated.

Responding to this and to your previous post in one go. I'd love to hear you debate this with the AG lawyers, because you're discussing this at one level beyond my depth.

But yes, in the interview cited, Aiken put more emphasis on copyright. In his discussion with me, he put it more on existing contracts (and the AG, I'm sure, sees many contracts because they invite members to submit them for review). I think you're probably right that he's trying to spin it from various directions, and not being entirely clear. That's why I quoted earlier the one place in the interview where he really referred to the book contracts rather than to the copyright issue. That part made more sense to me.

I don't think anyone wants to stop the use of this technology. It's more about who has the right to have what money flowing in their direction.

[starrigger]

I'm going to leave the room for a while--but it's been a pleasure to have a thoroughly civil discussion on this, so thank you all. I'll come back to catch up later.

[da_jane]

By the time that TTS issue replaces audio "performances", AI will be able to write most genre fiction.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by da_jane

By the time that TTS issue replaces audio "performances", AI will be able to write most genre fiction.

They're already working on the Stephen King alogirithm - it takes a normal size novel and infaltes it to 4x it's readable size.

[Ervserver]

This conversation is all moot now....Amazon caved

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/27/a...e-text-to-spe/


..

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Ervserver

This conversation is all moot now....Amazon caved

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/27/a...e-text-to-spe/


..

I scooped them.
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40487