Amazon Caves on Text-To-Speech

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The mere idea that someone would restrict a piece of data I'd bought farely and squarely is what's dumb about all this.

You haven't bought that data, any more than you buy any "rights" to the story when you buy a pBook. With both a pBook and an eBook you're granted a "restricted licence" to do certain things.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You haven't bought that data, any more than you buy any "rights" to the story when you buy a pBook. With both a pBook and an eBook you're granted a "restricted licence" to do certain things.

And how ridiculous is that for a start? Once it's on my hard drive, or I hold it in my hands, there's no stopping what I can do as long as it's for private consumption. They can invent as many laws as they want, they can wrap all culture up in DRM, but in the end, alone, without them standing over me, the law is meaningless.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Since the text says "when all existing ebook editions of the work" I believe that selling a DRMed version with TTS enabled (maybe at a very high price) automatically makes DRM removal illegal for all other formats.

Well, duh. That's why I said.

The K2 threatened this becuase it had the vast majority of ebook available in the US, and it could play all of them on TTS.

[HarryT]

So, do you accept, Nate, that you CANNOT legally remove the DRM from ANY book which is sold in the Kindle store that does NOT disable TTS, or for which there is an audiobook version available?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And how ridiculous is that for a start? Once it's on my hard drive, or I hold it in my hands, there's no stopping what I can do as long as it's for private consumption. They can invent as many laws as they want, they can wrap all culture up in DRM, but in the end, alone, without them standing over me, the law is meaningless.

It's not "ridiculous" at all, unless you'd consider it "acceptable" to photocopy 10 copies of a pBook and give those photocopies to your friends? That's what the law is there to prevent you doing. It just happens that making copies of a pBook is probably more effort than most people are willing to go to, but that doesn't apply to digital data, of course. Would you consider it acceptable to copy an eBook and give copies to your friends?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The claim that the DRM disability exemption applies to everybody is highly dubious, and has not been tested in court. If you read the DMCA exemptions, they clearly (IMHO) restrict the right to remove DRM to those people suffering from a disability which requires this. It is not a blanket carte blanche for everybody to remove DRM. Think about it. Why have a law which makes DRM removal illegal, with an exemption which legalises it? Politicians are dumb, but not that dumb.

I disagree.. The exception states under what conditions it can be used. It does not say who can use it, nor does it does say you can only do it for a specific reason.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I disagree..

I know you do. The point I'm making is that this has not been tested in court and, until it is, one cannot state categorically that DRM removal is legal under the exemption. But even if you believe that it is, you must surely accept that, given the TTS capabilities of the K2, it is not legal to remove DRM from any book that the K2 can read aloud?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So, do you accept, Nate, that you CANNOT legally remove the DRM from ANY book which is sold in the Kindle store that does NOT disable TTS, or for which there is an audiobook version available?

The audio book is not relevant, but other than that yes. But Amazon indicated they are disabling TTS on all ebooks, so I do not see this as a problem.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The audio book is not relevant, but other than that yes. But Amazon indicated they are disabling TTS on all ebooks, so I do not see this as a problem.

Where have they indicated that? The article you quote simply says:

Therefore, we are modifying our systems so that rightsholders can decide on a title by title basis whether they want text-to-speech enabled or disabled for any particular title.

I don't read that as saying "they are disabling TTS on all ebooks"!

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's not "ridiculous" at all, unless you'd consider it "acceptable" to photocopy 10 copies of a pBook and give those photocopies to your friends? That's what the law is there to prevent you doing....

Actually, it goes a little further. Forget my friends. It also prevents me from letting my wife read the book I purchased - she has an iLiad.

It also prevents me from using the file I purchased for the Kindle, on my next ereader, if it does not support the DRM. This would be akin to selling books for use in your home, but if you move, you can't take them with you to the new house.

There are reasonable laws. Then there are laws which ban sex until you are 21, or prohibit alcohol, or marijuana, or sodomy, or condoms, Then there is the DMA.

If you don't have the right model and price structure, too large of a percentage of your potential customers will pilfer your product. Price it right, and most wouldn't bother, but would just pay for it. Simple as that.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's not "ridiculous" at all, unless you'd consider it "acceptable" to photocopy 10 copies of a pBook and give those photocopies to your friends? That's what the law is there to prevent you doing. It just happens that making copies of a pBook is probably more effort than most people are willing to go to, but that doesn't apply to digital data, of course. Would you consider it acceptable to copy an eBook and give copies to your friends?

Actually, I would. Culture trumps profits at all times, in my ebook. It wouldn't be any different, to me, than when I give away a book to a friend. I've already read that book, maybe I won't read it again, maybe I will. For me the only difference would be that I now had an accessible copy on my HD.

The benefits of sharing have already been proven over and over again, whether you want to call it piracy or not is in the realm of semantics. A percieved, phantom sale is not an actual sale. It would then be up to my friend to decide on whether or not they wanted to support the author in question after I gave them a copy. It's been my experience that most people, myself included, go on to purchase back-catalogues, new releases and other related material after being given access to 'free' materials, if only to show support and feel as if they're contributing.

Truth be told I have bought more items of culture due to the ease of availabilty of these works through 'illegal' means than I ever bought beforeheand. I now own all of Cory Doctorow's novels in their pbook form, and yet I got them all for free. I also own pBooks of many public domain novels which I also have on the hard drive. Same for the Richard Stark novels I was given on a CD-Rom a couple of years back. Sharing is not stealing, it's the foundation of a healthy culture. DRM is the block to that culture.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Where have they indicated that? The article you quote simply says:



I don't read that as saying "they are disabling TTS on all ebooks"!

I think you might be correct that I'm reading too much into it. But I still suspect that Amazon will disable TTS.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I have to admit, I've pretty much come around to the Guild's position on this--which I initially opposed--not on general copyright grounds, but because of the likely violation of huge numbers of individual publishing contracts, which grant or withhold carefully defined rights. I think Amazon finally realized that they should have talked to people first and found out what they could or could not do without encroaching on contractual rights.

I think that it is this kind of thinking that hinder innovations. It is a good thing that Amazon and Google can dare to do thing that will stimulate development without being so scared of being sued.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But even if you believe that it is, you must surely accept that, given the TTS capabilities of the K2, it is not legal to remove DRM from any book that the K2 can read aloud?

Has this really been tested in court that you cannot remove DRM from books? With the new policy that you should not claim anything if i has not been tested on court I think a court case should be given for each claim.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Has this really been tested in court that you cannot remove DRM from books? With the new policy that you should not claim anything if i has not been tested on court I think a court case should be given for each claim.

It has not been tested in court, Tommy; that's why I think that to make "definitive" statements about its legality or otherwise is unwise. I was merely stating what Nate himself appeared to be saying about the situation - that IF he believes this exemption to ONLY apply to those books for which no TTS is available, then it would be logical to deduce he would also accept that to remove DRM from books for which a TTS option DOES exist would NOT be legal. I believe that Nate has agreed that this is indeed his viewpoint.

Needless to say, I personally do not believe that the DMCA exemption has any validity for non-disabled people, but that is purely a personal opinion and since I am not a lawyer, I make no claim that my viewpoint is anything other than uneducated personal opinion.