Authors Guild Silent Over iBooks Text-To-Speech

Last year we discussed news that the Authors Guild took issue with the Kindle's text-to-speech function, claiming it was illegal for the device to read their books aloud. Amazon disagreed, but said they were willing to disable the feature upon request from rightsholders. Now, jamie notes a recent article by David Pogue at the NY Times in which he points out that Apple's free iBooks app does the same thing, yet the Authors Guild has remained silent. Quoting: "... Now swipe down the page with two fingers to make the iPhone start reading the book to you, out loud, with a synthesized voice. It even turns the pages automatically and keeps going until you tap with two fingers to stop it. Yes, this is exactly the feature that debuted in the Amazon Kindle and was then removed when publishers screamed bloody murder. But somehow, so far, Apple has gotten away with it, maybe because nobody's even realized this feature is in there." That said, the feature was certainly noticed during the launch of the iPad, so perhaps the Authors Guild has other reasons for holding their peace.

Comments

Why are they silent?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should use Text-To-Speech so that we... oh... THAT was the joke.

Soulskill. Crappy punches for crappy headlines.

so apple does not like blind people?

[Joe The Dragon]

so apple does not like blind people?

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[mr100percent]

No, apple LOVES blind people, but the Author's guild may not love them as much

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[longhairedgnome]

How did you get that impression?

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[VGPowerlord]

How did you get that impression?

The touchscreen interface should have been a big clue.

As a general rule, touchscreen interfaces are not vision-impaired friendly.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[longhairedgnome]

lol ya got me!

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[scatterbrain]

There's Accessibility settings to allow for VoiceOver, Zoom, Large Text, Speaking auto corrections,etc... at least in iOS4. I'm fairly certain at a minimum that VoiceOver, Zoom and Large Text are in 3.2, but I don't have an iPad to test. They do try to make it accessible.
Unfortunately most app writers don't test their app with those settings turned on.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[mikestew]

General rules applied to specific examples? Nice try. Go turn on VoiceOver and get back to us about how much Apple dislikes blind people.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[Cheech Wizard]

More people are partially blind than totally blind. They can manipulate a touch screen with big button icons but the text is too difficult to read for them to read a book comfortably. But you are correct - As a general rule, touchscreen interfaces are not vision-impaired friendly.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[BorgDrone]

So that is why the National Federation of the Blind posted this press release after the iPad's launch commending Apple for how accesible the iPad is to the blind ?

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[theshowmecanuck]

Yeah, I like the way the keyboard slides out so blind touch typists can use it too. What? It has a Braille feature? No? Oh. Never mind.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[Attila Dimedici]

How does a blind person turn on VoiceOver?

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so is it illegal to read stories to my daughter now?

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing about how the blind actually interact with modern technology. Touchscreens (along with audio cueing) are one of the best things to happen to blind accessibility in recent history.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[grub]

There is a Braille feature in the accessibility page. It allows a person to use a Braille Bluetooth device with their iOS4-running iDevice.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[hansamurai]

I have a friend who's totally blind and is incredibly adept at technology. He runs his own web site, uses his iPhone daily, and compliments/complains daily to companies who don't have accessibility features on their apps and gadgets. He also plays video games and records himself playing and posts the videos on Youtube.

Here's his contacts if anyone is interested in reading stuff from him:
http://twitter.com/liamerven
http://www.youtube.com/liamerven

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[mikestew]

On the outside chance you're not just being a smartass (and fair enough even if you are): http://www.apple.com/accessibility/iphone/vision.html
"You can activate your iPhone and enable VoiceOver without sighted assistance using iTunes with a compatible screen reader like VoiceOver included in Mac OS X ..."

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[hesiod]

How does a blind person turn on VoiceOver?

The same way Billy Shears gets by.

("With a little help from [his] friends", for the confused.)

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[mikestew]

You're just calling it in, aren't you? BT Braille devices will connect to an iPhone.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[Smauler]

So who thinks a _touchscreen_ is a decent choice for someone visually impaired? Something that relies on hand eye coordination, with no physical feedback?

I know I'm probably going to be proved wrong in a minute by the blind iPad fanbois.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[CastrTroy]

And yet we sighted people still can't connect a bluetooth keyboard.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[amicusNYCL]

There's Accessibility settings to allow for VoiceOver, Zoom, Large Text, Speaking auto corrections

Using zoom and large text for blind people is sort of like yelling at deaf people.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[scatterbrain]

true, but i'm sure those just legally blind or visually impaired appreciate it.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[maxwell demon]

Maybe you could make an adapter which makes the keyboard look like a Braille device to the iP*?

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[theshowmecanuck]

I was thinking more along the lines of the new Blackberry which will have a slide out keyboard. A built in standard qwerty with real buttons means they don't have to suffer the inconvenience of having to carry around another piece of hardware in order to use very common features.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[bennomatic]

Actually, sighted, blind and deaf people can connect bluetooth keyboards to their iPhones now. Only dumb ones can't.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[GlassHeart]

I know I'm probably going to be proved wrong in a minute by the blind iPad fanbois.

So why not do a simple web search before talking about something you don't actually know?

"When it comes to embedding accessibility, Apple has set the standard in recent years," - Robin Spinks, principal manager of digital accessibility at the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

"The Apple iPad is one hundred percent accessible straight out of the box... Blind individuals can glide a finger over the screen, and as they glide their fingers, the options will be spoken aloud. When the users hear an option that they want to select, they can tap their fingers on that option twice, and the option will then be selected. There is no barrier to us blind folks using the Apple iPad's touch screen." - Waldorf PC

"Even though I have pointed out some access barriers that still need to be overcome, the overwhelming majority of features and functions on the iPad are accessible. I have to applaud Apple for once again producing a tremendous mainstream device with accessibility built-in, and at no extra cost." - Darren Burton, AccessWorld

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using zoom and large text for blind people is sort of like yelling at deaf people.

Blind is not always totally blind; so I can see the legally blind (with some sight) being able to use zoom and large text.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[commodore64_love]

One of my FAA coworkers was like that.

He had to blow text to gigantic size on his screen, and even then he still needed to put his face up to the monitor to read it. I was glad the FAA gave hi a job, but still felt sorry for him. Can't we invent a cloned eye yet, to make that kind of disability obsolete?

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[aristotle-dude]

And yet we sighted people still can't connect a bluetooth keyboard.

You have been able to connect a bluetooth keyboard to an iPad since launch and you can even attach a USB keyboard if you want via the camera connection dongle. No jailbreak needed.

With iOS 4.x, you can connect a bluetooth keyboard to your iPhone.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[purplepolecat]

So who thinks a _touchscreen_ is a decent choice for someone visually impaired? Something that relies on hand eye coordination, with no physical feedback?

I know I'm probably going to be proved wrong in a minute by the blind iPad fanbois.

lkdsrkjhskg! kflijaf fkjhskjh apple aj nnd kjhkdjsfg, rjj ok !

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[milkmage]

apparently the BLIND think it's pretty slick

this is the American Foundation for the Blind. ORG

http://www.afb.org/blog/blog_comments.asp?TopicID=6149&FolderID=25

Yes, it's an all-touch-screen device. Yes, I've always said that touch screens and blind people don't go together -- it's suggested, usually by slightly dumb people, that I could just memorize where all the icons were and then I could touch the screen at the right spot and get the right thing to happen... Do they really think they could withdraw $100 from an ATM that way? Dial a phone?

But, the iPhone and iPad have an ingenious and delightful interface that actually makes the touch screen a pleasure to use.

There will be a proper, full-featured review of the iPad in AccessWorld soon. These are just the first impressions of a so-far-happy customer.

here's more.
http://www.afb.org/afbpress/pub.asp?DocID=aw110206

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[nacturation]

No, apple LOVES blind people, but the Author's guild may not love them as much

I wonder if the Author's Guild can be pursued under any sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. If a blind person needs a book to do their job or to learn in school and this book is unavailable in any spoken text version, if the Author's Guild has blocked access to the only means the blind person has of reading that book... it could be interesting.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[nacturation]

One of my FAA coworkers was like that. He had to blow text to gigantic size on his screen, and even then he still needed to put his face up to the monitor to read it. I was glad the FAA gave him a job, but still felt sorry for him.

Hopefully he had an administrative job and wasn't an air traffic controller.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[indiechild]

You'd think a multitouch device with no physical feedback wouldn't work well for vision impaired users, right? Fortunately, Apple has proved that wrong. Gotta love innovation.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[Karlt1]

And yet we sighted people still can't connect a bluetooth keyboard.

Do you have a special iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch running the latest OS that doesn't work with BT keyboards?

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[tehcyder]

I know I'm probably going to be proved wrong in a minute by the blind iPad fanbois.

You do know that when people say "blind fanaticism" they don't mean it literally?

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[clone53421]

Actually, they can – they just can’t tell anyone about it.

Re:so apple does not like blind people?

[milkmage]

you realize there's a concept of legally blind, right?
you retain some sight, but not enough to say drive or read (normal sized text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindness

n order to determine which people may need special assistance because of their visual disabilities, various governmental jurisdictions have formulated more complex definitions referred to as legal blindness.[2] In North America and most of Europe, legal blindness is defined as visual acuity (vision) of 20/200 (6/60) or less in the better eye with best correction possible. This means that a legally blind individual would have to stand 20 feet (6.1 m) from an object to see it—with corrective lenses—with the same degree of clarity as a normally sighted person could from 200 feet (61 m). In many areas, people with average acuity who nonetheless have a visual field of less than 20 degrees (the norm being 180 degrees) are also classified as being legally blind. Approximately ten percent of those deemed legally blind, by any measure, have no vision. The rest have some vision, from light perception alone to relatively good acuity. Low vision is sometimes used to describe visual acuities from 20/70 to 20/200.[3]

What's the problem

[mark72005]

How does this hurt them on books where there is no audio version available?

Re:What's the problem

[savanik]

Because of poorly written contracts. Most current contracts don't have a distinction between 'audiobook' and 'text-to-speech conversion'. If the authors don't defend their copyright on the text-to-speech conversion, it can be legally argued that they don't mind if the publisher has rights to produce audiobooks - or that they actually sold the right to the publisher in the first place, even if it wasn't explicitly stated in the contract. Considering that we're typically talking about significant amounts of money, that an author may have to live on for the next few years while they write their next work... yeah, it can hurt them, because the original contracts didn't take future technology into account.

Re:What's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does it even matter what 'interface' (eye's, ears, fingers[brail] etc) you use to make use of a copyrighted work that you have presumably paid for.

Re:What's the problem

[XnavxeMiyyep]

This. Also, most computers have text-to-speech. Many scanners can identify letters. BAN TEXT-TO-SPEECH IN COMPUTERS!

Re:What's the problem

[cygnwolf]

I never understood the first time around how TTS was different from setting it to render in oversize font or in a different typeface...

Re:What's the problem

[PCM2]

I'm not sure that's the issue. An author is under no obligation to defend a copyright or risk losing it, the way he might be obliged to defend a trademark or risk losing it. He can sue for copyright infringement today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now (under the current regime).

I think the debate is more about whether a text-to-speech process actually produces a derivative work. Authors have argued in the past that it does. But one could also argue that a computer reproducing a work via text-to-speech is no different than reproducing it by displaying its text on a screen -- and therefore it does not violate copyright.

Authors, on the other hand, don't want to lose the ability to sell audiobook editions because devices exist that can read books aloud automatically. Audiobook sales account for a large amount of royalties.

Re:What's the problem

[mapkinase]

It hurts them emotionally

Re:What's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait wait. I know trademarks you have to defend or risk losing them, but unless the author's contract specifically states it; you do not have to "defend a copyright." The only way to lose a copyright is by it expiring or by signing it away.

Re:What's the problem

[DarthVain]

Or....

Have you bought an audio book lately? Most the ones I have seen cost a lot more than a paper back book.

If I have the ability to buy a 10$ paper back book and have it read to me, why the hell would I buy the 40$ audio book?

Another example of industry not keeping up with technology and trying to use the courts and copyright laws to enforce their business model.

This is about greed, pure and simple. Considering the type of people that most buy audio books (blind and/or old people) I find it kind of despicable.

Before paying what you paid for a service you could really only get one way it was hard to feel bad about the premium. Now that it is available more readily for cheaper and for all titles, and they want to force you to still pay more for the privilege? Sick.

Re:What's the problem

[Confusador]

If I have the ability to buy a 10$ paper back book and have it read to me, why the hell would I buy the 40$ audio book?

Have you listened to a audio book read by a person compared to the same work done by a computer? The person doesn't even have to be very good to win that battle. It's an interesting conversation in light of the potential of future tech, and to be sure it's getting better, but there's a long way to go before professional book readers will be looking for work.

Re:What's the problem

[xaxa]

I haven't used any of the text-to-speech applications, but I assume a voice actor would do a much better job. That might or might not be worth $30 to you.

Re:What's the problem

[cgenman]

To be fair, audiobooks do involve a degree of work. Most audiobooks are abridged, so you need to edit the book and get the edits approved by the author. You need to hire a celebrity reader. You need to rent a studio to record the reading in, with an audio person present to make sure everything is warm and punchy. A producer needs to edit everything together. None of that is cheap. And all of that is chasing a niche within a niche.

Of course, text-to-speech is basically free. And means the old audiobook process is obsolete for most titles. But charging more for the audiobook version makes sense.

Re:What's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Authors, on the other hand, don't want to lose the ability to sell audiobook editions because devices exist that can read books aloud automatically. Audiobook sales account for a large amount of royalties.

But that's just it! I'm not going to not buy an audiobook version of a book I want just because I can get it text to speech -ified. Why the hell would I want to listen to a monotone voice for 20 hours, most likely screwing up names all along the way? I get the audiobook version because I want to hear an actor playing those voices, just like I do in my head when I read a book. Sure, if you can't get anything else, text-to-speech is better than nothing. But if I want to listen to an audiobook, a text-to-speech book is not going to suffice.

Re:What's the problem

[DarthVain]

I would agree totally. However who should make that choice, the customer, or the lawyers?

Re:What's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the person clearly sounds much better. But come on, how much should audiobooks really cost? The book is already published, most money comes from hardbacks, then ebooks, then paperback. A book may be 20 hours long when read by a professional. Let's say they take 3x that actually recording and editing out goofs, burps, etc. How much are audiobook readers paid? $50,000/hour? Audiobooks are a total scam, quite often read by the author themselves.

Re:What's the problem

[whoever57]

You need to hire a celebrity reader.

There is no need to hire a celebrity reader. I assume publishers do this in order to maximise profits and justify the vastly increased price of the audiobook.

Re:What's the problem

[ISoldat53]

All good performers of audiobooks bring a very different experience to the work. The person reading an audiobook makes all the difference in the world. Jim Dale helped make the Rowling books. Having the right person read the book is important too. Patrick O'Brian's Jack Aubrey series was brought to life by Patrick Tull's reading. I can not picture anyone else doing justice to the series. Terry Pratchett's works are made by Stephen Briggs' performance. After hearing these readings, I could not stand to have a computer read the book. That difference is worth protecting. The Authors should have a say in how a work is performed.

Re:What's the problem

[DarthVain]

Capitalism doesn't solve everything, but when you take choice away from the consumer, it solves nothing.

That is where things fall down. That is the current plight of all our woes in all our shared economies. All things being equal it works, problem is, rarely are things even remotely equal.

If audio books provide a service I want, and I am willing to pay that price, then I buy that product. If I am willing to settle for a lower price, and perhaps lesser quality for text to speech then I will pay that price.

What is happening here is the industry is getting afraid that should a market establish itself, technology improvements will follow, and they will lose their monopoly as the only game in town for audio books. Because if the trend continued, and demand increased, likely people would try to improved the technology more aggressively for profit.

Where if you make it illegal you have the opposite effect, slowing the advance of the technology, increasing the amount of time you can take advantage of people. Thus you have industries now, making things that are ubik, illegal as it is the only way they can make money anymore.

In my book (pardon pun), that's lame.

Re:What's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I would assume the increased cost of the audiobook version is mostly a result of the added costs in making it. Do many people buy the audio book in addition to the paper/ebook? If not, wouldn't the author sell about the same total amount and make about the same amount of money? In fact, they may lose sales from people who would buy a ebook reader and ebooks if there was a TTS option. Unless there are a bunch of people buying both versions, I don't really see a reason to not allow it.

Re:What's the problem

[DarthVain]

Your kidding right?

I was about to argue that shouldn't the customer have the right to make decisions about what they are willing to pay for? I mean it might not be as nice as a professional reader, but I might say I am willing to buy it because it is half the cost...

then... "should have a say in how a work is performed"

Your seriously telling me that the Author of a work has the RIGHT to tell ME how I READ his book?

I am pretty sure if I want to read it backwards, upside down, in Klingon, to my best friend, I have the right to do so. If I wish to have a computer synthesize voice for me, I think I have that right too.

Don't get me wrong, if it is going to be distributed in voice, or film or something, then sure. But I have the right to do what I want with it after I buy it so long as I don't copy it and claim it as my own or try to sell copies. Gah!

Re:What's the problem

[kimvette]

I think you're confusing Trademark Law with Copyright Law.

Re:What's the problem

[icebike]

If the authors don't defend their copyright on the text-to-speech conversion,

It is not yet clear that text to speech copyright exists.
It is not at set in law that reading aloud from a book is a performance, and therefore separately licensable.

A machine reading a book to the owner is not a performance (no fee charged, no money earned) and therefore there is no basis for authors or publishers to claim a copyright.

Authors made a big noise, but they had no legal leg to stand on and Amazon was busy at the time fighting other (pricing) battles. If course its Apple, the darling of the "creative" industry, and maybe that has something to do with the silence.

Re:What's the problem

[Taxman415a]

Have you listened to a audio book read by a person compared to the same work done by a computer? The person doesn't even have to be very good to win that battle.

It depends what your criteria are. It takes a freeking eon to listen to an audio book because it's read at a normal or below normal speaking pace, which is much slower than a reading pace. When people use screen readers they typically crank up the speed to the highest speed they can still understand the given content at. That means you don't have to listen for 12 hours or more for your average book. Most devices that can play audio books still don't have easy features for speeding them up, so text to speech wins out in many cases if you have much to get through. After a while, the voice doesn't matter and all you care about is the content. Text to speech also wins for studying since you can search through for desired words or strings.

It's an interesting conversation in light of the potential of future tech, and to be sure it's getting better, but there's a long way to go before professional book readers will be looking for work.

Since there are a lot of people that don't need the audio feature, but simply choose it for convenience, you're right. Those people are likely to choose a regular audio book for a while. However the state of the art text to speech is pretty good. It's just that most people don't have experience with the state of the art with good voices. They only hear the stripped down stuff something like the Kindle has.

Re:What's the problem

[nacturation]

I think the debate is more about whether a text-to-speech process actually produces a derivative work. Authors have argued in the past that it does.

It's a stupid argument though. Reading a book to your kids does not constitute the creation of a derivative work. There might be a point if you read a book into an audio recording device and then gave the recording to your kids to playback at their leisure, but in the absence of that there is no "work" being produced by a human or computer other than ephemeral audio waves.

Re:What's the problem

[PCM2]

Yeah, like I said.

Re:What's the problem

[dissy]

How does this hurt them on books where there is no audio version available?

It hurts them a lot. The authors only made money three or four times for the work they did once, and this read it out loud feature is preventing them from being paid yet again for the same work done long ago.

Apologies in advance for the flame, and even more so to the authors who disagree with the guild and I unfairly lump in with them...

But the fact they offer no product to compete with it is beside the point. Authors in the guild have stated time and time again that it is their god given right to control their works and get payments multiple times over for one job.

The fact they can't sit back and make more money by not creating new product doesn't occur to them as being their fault, they just see it as someone else stealing money from their pockets.

That is why they sued Google for making their books searchable followed by wanting to shut down the public library system, and why they sued Amazon for selling used books and not giving the authors money again and again and again for one sale of one book.

While this certainly isn't the stance of ALL authors, it most definitely is the stance of the loudest ones, which happen to be the ones that pack together in this guild to cry about how not making new product is causing them to starve out on the streets and how no one will ever write again if money isn't involved, since clearly no one writes for the enjoyment of it.

The greedy bastards in the guild would rather see all literature in the world no longer exist than to see someone else profit off 'their' work, despite the provisions in copyright law that (admittedly that everyone is forced into using nowadays) state the work belongs to the public domain in exchange for that copyright protection for a limited time.

Re:What's the problem

[cgenman]

If you're not going celebrity, you need to at least go VAG. And VAG work ain't cheap.

Re:What's the problem

[safetyinnumbers]

I haven't used any of the text-to-speech applications, but I assume a voice actor would do a much better job. That might or might not be worth $30 to you.

I frequently listen to audio books and I'm often impressed by what can only be described as the 'performance' of some readers. At first I found someone doing different voices a little strange to listen to, but it really helps follow the dialog when I can't devote my full attention to it (such as during a long drive).

And I dread to think what text-to-speech would do with, say, a science-fiction story full of malamanteau words.

Re:What's the problem

[tehcyder]

If I have the ability to buy a 10$ paper back book and have it read to me, why the hell would I buy the 40$ audio book?

Yeah, and what's the point of paying £50 for a theatre ticket to see a professional production, when me and my friends can buy a copy of the text for £5 and act it out in our garden shed for free?

Clue: audio books aren't just read out by computerised voices, there are actors involved who, gasp, want to be paid for their work.

Re:What's the problem

[tehcyder]

We're talking about art, so the author will always *want* to have a say in how people get to view their work. He can't stop you buying a copy and using it as toilet paper, but that doesn't have to mean he has to agree with your decision.

Re:What's the problem

[geminidomino]

Terry Pratchett's works are made by Stephen Briggs' performance

I gotta disagree with you there... Briggs was good, but the ones read by Nigel Planer were far better, IMNSHO. :)

Re:What's the problem

[geminidomino]

The greedy bastards in the guild would rather see all literature in the world no longer exist than to see someone else profit off 'their' work

Sounds like the GPL zealots here on /. when presented with the BSD license. :)

Yeah yeah, flamebait but I couldn't resist. Like Karma means a fuck anyway.

Re:What's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

>If I have the ability to buy a 10$ paper back book and have it read to me, why the hell would I buy the 40$ audio book?

Because when you get a real audio book you get the honeyed words of some of the silkiest voices in the world tonguing your ears. By contrast when you use TTS you get a tin robot raping your ear with his grinding voice of fail?

Re:What's the problem

[DarthVain]

Yeah the whole point, is that consumers should be able to make that choice themselves and decide if the service is worth the fee, that is what capitalism is all about. What they propose is basically to sue your friend for acting it out in the garden shed as illegal and breach of copyright.

Re:What's the problem

[Gilmoure]

Hmm... Apple computer voice 'Kathy' or 'Carl' reading a book verses Patrick Stewart, Christopher Walken or Wil Wheaton. Yeah, totally gonna' put those guys out of business.

Re:What's the problem

[dissy]

Sounds like the GPL zealots here on /. when presented with the BSD license. :)

Yeah yeah, flamebait but I couldn't resist. Like Karma means a fuck anyway.

That's the thing about flamebait. Makes it all the more stingy when it's true.

I'm surprised we both aren't modded to oblivion

Re:What's the problem

[milkmage]

If I have the ability to buy a 10$ paper back book and have it read to me, why the hell would I buy the 40$ audio book? ...because there's something to be said for professional narration? You're not paying for (just) the content.. you're paying for the hours the person sat down and read it for you.

I could listen to Stephen Fry read the phone book and love every second of it.. the synthesized voice gets on your nerves after a while.

Re:What's the problem

[DarthVain]

The difference is that they want to take that purchasing choice AWAY from you. They want to make it illegal and force you to pay the premium for their audio book. That's how I see it anyway.

Re:What's the problem

[RivenAleem]

There's different kinds of audio-book though. I listened to them quite a lot when I was cycling to work, or doing data entry tasks. I listened to a bit of Harry Potter, which is all read by Stephen Fry. It was okay, but after a while I got quite bored of just listening to him and stopped. I listened to the full Wheel of Time audio book too, which had alternating chapters read by male/female. This was an improvement and I was able to listen to the whole thing, though it has to be said that I didn't like the Harry Potter books much in the first place.

But then you get a totally different class of audio-book like The Golden Compass. This trilogy is done using a full cast of voice actors for the different people (some doing multiple characters) and a narrator. I'm not 100%, but I think the Ender series is done like this too.

I haven't seen (or heard) the complete top of the range text-to-speech, but until they can make the books have different voices for the different characters, there will always be a market for professionally produced audio-books.

Re:What's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And the result of a this extra work, is a vastly superior product to an ebook read by text-to-speech. Having your iPad/Kindle/whatever read an ebook to you is equivalent to having a barely literate servant reading a book to you, should anyone have to pay the author extra for the privilege of having a book read to them?

I don't see the Authors Guild having a valid case to ban text-to-speech conversions, only the distribution of the result of the text-to-speech conversion. And I don't think the old Audiobook process will be obsolete until text-to-speech can be improved to a comparable quality.

Does Apple sell books?

[BobMcD]

Maybe the difference is that Amazon is seen as more of a threat than Apple?

Not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely asking.

Re:Does Apple sell books?

[Bodero]

With a statement like that, you'd almost expect Amazon to be selling eBooks at a 60-to-1 ratio compared to rival Apple.

Re:Does Apple sell books?

[Karlt1]

With a statement like that, you'd almost expect Amazon to be selling eBooks at a 60-to-1 ratio compared to rival Apple.

Wow, a whole sample size of one author.....

Re:Does Apple sell books?

[Tubal-Cain]

Or they realize that moving against Apple would be exponentially worse publicity, to the point that the mainstream news might pick it up.

Re:Does Apple sell books?

[Brandee07]

I'd think it's because Apple is a scarier target. They were able to bully Amazon, but Apple has a top-notch legal team and a demonstrated disinclination to budge when pressures like this are applied.

Re:Does Apple sell books?

[Kitkoan]

Mostly likely it is that Apple is more of a threat then Amazon. At the moment if they leave it alone they can let it sit in legal limbo and allow themselves to build up the case then push forward (something they might have learned from Amazon) and try to make it illegal in the future. If they went for the legal attack now and lose to Apple they run the risk of the law stating that this is a legally acceptable option and would allow all future devices to allow for this. So waiting would more or less be a good move for them at the moment I feel, because while current TTS isn't that great and doesn't hold up well against a real speaker, the technology will improve with time. Now with the TTS moving forward and improving with time there runs a chance that TTS systems can sound pleasant and possibly understand word usage enough to make them just as good (or even better) then the audio version (lets be honest, some audio book readers could stand to sound less bored and more into what they are reading). When this happens and TTS is on par or better then the real thing then people won't want to buy the audio book version and if they lose now then they won't be able to do anything legally about it, but if they wait and build a solid case to make it illegal then this won't be a problem in the future.

Re:Does Apple sell books?

[somersault]

How the hell can they expect to make generic screen readers illegal? These generic screen readers should be able to read anything on the screen too via OCR, even if they're not legally allowed to read directly via the file format.

Damnit, the crazy reachings of rich entities facing the extinction of their outdated business models are so frustrating.

Re:Does Apple sell books?

[Kitkoan]

How can they expect to make screen readers illegal? Simple, the TOS of the ebook state that its for non-audio purposes only.

Re:Does Apple sell books?

[dissy]

These generic screen readers should be able to read anything on the screen too via OCR, even if they're not legally allowed to read directly via the file format.

Actually the DMCA provides an exemption specifically for DRM formats that block screen readers, in that those forms of DRM are NOT covered under the DMCA, so are fully legal to crack for that purpose.

Re:Does Apple sell books?

[mdwh2]

You mean of the ebook (text) itself, or the physical ebook reader? Either way, I don't see how that makes anything illegal.

You don't agree to a contract before buying these things; contracts are a civil not criminal issue; and I don't see how that should prevent someone producing a screen reader, even if someone else had "agreed" to not use one on "their" device.

The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[Cheech Wizard]

Maybe the Authors Guild has learned a lesson in how not to be pricks.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[MightyMartian]

I find that an unlikely explanation. It's more likely that there's something going on between the Guild and Apple.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[RevWaldo]

It's more likely that there's something going on between the Guild and Apple.

Unlike Amazon, Apple stays out of the Guild's way. One Infinite Loop is crawling with Strangers. Who do you think arranged their contract with Foxconn? You think all those "suicides" were from worker stress? Keep dreaming. Guild work is clean, professional. It's surgical with them. In a way they're the only organization Steve Jobs still respects. And they don't get dames get in the way!

.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[Cheech Wizard]

I do not for a minute doubt the Guild and Apple have an understanding and that it plays a part in it, but I don't think that discounts the possibility that the Authors Guild learned a lesson from the Kindle incident. My own opinion is the Authors Guild were stupid to make a fuss over the Kindle read aloud (text to speech) feature to begin with. My sister has been legally blind since a car accident back around 1970. She can technically see, but not very well. Now approaching her 70's (I'm 60 myself and my eyesight is going fast - I have a 24" monitor and special "computer" glasses for when I want to go online), she has gotten audio books from the library for years - For free. I would think that would be a big selling point. I used to drive a lot before I retired and have a couple hundred audio books on tape in my closet. I have no desire for, or need for, an iPad, but I like the idea. And, so what if there is some sort of agreement or understanding between the Guild and Apple? Companies (and people for that matter) make agreements and establish understandings every day. I don't see them as necessarily 'evil'. I have no idea why you would say that the Authors Guild has learned a lesson is unlikely. Maybe they don't have their heads totally up their asses like the RIAA and the MPAA.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[truthsearch]

I doubt the Guild has any special relationship with Apple. Unlike the MPAA and the RIAA, the Guild works directly on behalf of content creators who make up their membership. If the members don't make a fuss the Guild won't make a fuss. My guess is publishers, and therefore authors, are getting better terms from Apple since they're the underdog in e-books. With better compensation, publishers and authors aren't complaining.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[R3d M3rcury]

Amazon did not negotiate audio rights for the book when they set up their contracts. They got into trouble because of it and disabled the feature until the could negotiate the audio rights. Apple saw this and, when they negotiated their contracts, made sure that they had the audio rights for all books in the iBook Store.

Apple, as the e-book follower, learned about this problem in advance from Amazon's leadership in the market and had the contracts set up to allow audio. There's no big conspiracy here.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[MoonBuggy]

Perhaps, but then maybe the Authors Guild learned the meaning of the Streisand effect from going up against Amazon, and they're a bit more hesitant this time around. They may have 'won', but was the bad publicity worth it?

It's quite conceivable (although demonstrative of naivety on the Guild's part) that they thought nobody would care about a corporate dispute over copyright interpretation, or even that they were absolutely in the right and most people would side with them. Seeing the backlash from sites like this could have cautioned them against making the same mistake twice.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

And they don't get dames get in the way!

It's like you channel crazy dead people!

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[Smauler]

To be honest... this is only affecting a very small proportion of the population. It's not a big conspiracy, but it is symptomatic of IP protection nowadays. The original rights holders are aiming to profit off of a tiny segment of the market, which will provide little to no profit in actuality - they know this. The amount of money involved here will be very small.

The problem is that authors and companies now seek absolute control over all their works, and this was not the case (as much) in the past. The more we acknowledge the IP owner's rights to do as they please, the less control we are going to have.

This is a minority market to visually impaired people - it's not a profiteering pirate ring. I don't want to sound patronising, but things like text to speech keep those with impairments able to choose easily. Restricting them only fucking hurts those who will use them, who are sometimes the most at need of access to them. It smacks of "mine mine mine" to me, with no consideration of the consequences.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[Gadget_Guy]

That sounds great, but is it true. No disrespect, but I have read too many scenarios like this around here only to find that they are just complete guesswork on the part of the writer and have nothing to do with reality.

So how do you know that Apple has negotiated audio rights for their works?

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[RevWaldo]

And they don't let dames get in the way!

It's like you channel crazy dead people!

You think it's a cry for help?

.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[John Hasler]

Amazon did not negotiate audio rights for the book when they set up their contracts.

They had no need to do so as they were not reproducing audio copies. Having a book read out loud to you, whether by a person or a machine, does not impinge upon the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[R3d M3rcury]

So how do you know that Apple has negotiated audio rights for their works?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Seriously, I don't know. It's guesswork. But it's based on Apple's track record.

First, Apple negotiated with the music companies to make sure that their customers could use their music in iMovie and iDVD. Second, Apple negotiated ring-tones with the music industry. Third, Apple encrypted music going to their Airport Express in order to protect the music companies. Fourth, Apple licensed Amazon's "One-Click" patent.

Apple has shown itself more than willing to license and protect the IP of it's Apple Store providers. So it would make sense that Apple would have considered this angle and made certain that, when they negotiated with the rights-holders, they had the right to play audio.

I mean, it makes no sense for the Author's Guild to castigate Amazon yet remain silent in regard to Apple. Since anything Apple immediately hits the airwaves, you would think it would be just the opposite. So if they're staying silent, it probably means that they have an agreement with Apple. It may be an Apple imposed one--"You want to be in the iBook Store, you have to give us audio rights"--but it's an agreement.

Remember the issue with Amazon was that Amazon was creating audio versions of books without having negotiated the right to do so, unlike companies like Audible.com. It wasn't that the Author's Guild was against this kind of software, just that they wanted to be compensated for it. Whether they deserved to be compensated or not is debatable, no doubt. But Apple won't bother with those kinds of arguments--they'll just give them some money no matter how ridiculous it is (see ring tones).

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[Blakey Rat]

Do not be too hasty in entering that room. I had Taco Bell for lunch!

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[sanity123]

Remember the issue with Amazon was that Amazon was creating audio versions of books without having negotiated the right to do so, unlike companies like Audible.com

Amazon owns Audible.com. Amazon also owns Brilliance Audio, an audio book publisher.

I understood from previous articles that the problem is more with the author's contract rights with the publishers than with Apple/Amazon's rights with the publishers.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[Chosen Reject]

I mean, it makes no sense for the Author's Guild to castigate Amazon yet remain silent in regard to Apple. Since anything Apple immediately hits the airwaves

I think you have the reason why the Author's Guild is being silent. Their blathering about the TTS feature against Amazon was ridiculed by everyone that heard the story. The only reason they didn't get more ridicule was that the story wasn't broadly heard. Put Apple in the story and everyone would be ridiculing them.

Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson?

[Adrian Lopez]

Seriously, I don't know. It's guesswork.

In that case, it's worthless. A different guess, and no less reasonable, is that Apple has decided the iPad's TTS feature is no different than Acrobat Reader's "Read Out Loud" feature or the TTS software that ships with Windows. Do authors get to sue Adobe or Microsoft just because Acrobat Reader and Windows can read out loud any text the computer can recognize? If not, why is Apple any different?

Publishers Loves Their DRM

[bill_mcgonigle]

Since last year the LOC has made a rule that DRM breaks are legal if readers are shut out:

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

Re:Publishers Loves Their DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold up.

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work ... contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

So now that an ebook format exists on iOS that doesn't contain said access controls, DRM breaking on other devices is once again illegal? Perhaps that's why the League is letting the iOS version slide.

Re:Publishers Loves Their DRM

[Brandee07]

Yeah, the new rule is pretty limited.

If you can get the ebook legally from Amazon, B&N, and iBooks, but only iBooks has TTS enabled, but you only have a Kindle, then breaking the DRM would technically be illegal, even though the only TTS-enabled copy won't run on your device.

Re:Publishers Loves Their DRM

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yeah, and imagine if the books that are speakable are spread across all the available devices. Blind people will need to own a room full of readers.

Re:Publishers Loves Their DRM

[John Hasler]

Note that this means it is legal to distribute software that includes circumvention technology if the primary purpose of the software is reading aloud.

Re:Publishers Loves Their DRM

[beetle496]

I was going to mention this, so thanks for beating me to it!

Not quite the same...

[Moridineas]

FWIW, I had no idea the feature was there. The annoying thing is that you have to turn on Voice Over in the accessibility settings...for the entire phone. So the whole interface of the phone changes (you have to double tap buttons, etc) and it's quite annoying to have it on if it's not something you need. I guess you can turn voiceover on/off at will, but it's a decent amount of hassle.

Re:Not quite the same...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can set the iOS device to turn on Voice Over with a triple tap, it's in the accessibility settings...somewhere. I use it when developing, but it can be annoying when I accidentally triple click instead of double.

Re:Not quite the same...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go to Settings - General - Accessibility on the device, you can set it up so a triple-click of the Home button will toggle VoiceOver. It would be nice to have a more subtle way of activating it but this is probably a good option particularly for those who don't see well.

Re:Not quite the same...

[wygit]

You can go into settings -> General -> Accessability -> Triple-click Home and set it to "Toggle VoiceOver".

So you're reading the book, you tripleclick the home button, swipe down with two fingers and it starts reading to you. Tap with two fingers to pause the reader. tripleclick home again to turn off VoiceOver.

Not something I'll probably ever use, but it works.

Re:Not quite the same...

[Gadget_Guy]

So you're reading the book, you tripleclick the home button, swipe down with two fingers and it starts reading to you. Tap with two fingers to pause the reader. tripleclick home again to turn off VoiceOver.

Another great example of the ease of use of the iPhone. I can never understand why people keep claiming that it is user friendly when there are so many examples of these hidden features. The only saving grace in this case is that this is an obscure feature that few people will need to use.

Re:Not quite the same...

[Moridineas]

It's only "hidden" in that it's "in a menu." True, most people don't look in the config menus, but the iPhone's config menu is simpler than many (most?). It's user friend because most people can pick up an iphone and immediately figure out how to do most of the things they want to do. Upon hearing about the VoiceOver feature, the first place I went was "Settings" and then "Accessibility" ... perfectly logical.

Mac OS X is somewhat similar in terms of their being a LOT of shortcuts and all you can use, some of which aren't readily apparent. Think of them as bonuses for power users.

Re:Not quite the same...

[fermion]

The bottom line is no one is going to impair the usability of the iOS just to get it to read the book for them. It is a mutistep process to get the book read instead of automagic think on the Kindle. On the Apple it is clearly an integrated accessibility issue, not a way to kill the audio book.

On the Kindle the Author guild can frame their argument as one of licensing since the voice over feature was promoted as a standalone feature for general use, which could of some use to those who had impaired vision. In iOS, it is promoted as accessibility for those with poor vision, which might be useful those that wanted to listen to a book without a license. Attacking that is like attacking ramps on building because they encourage laziness in otherwise healthy people.

Re:Not quite the same...

[John Hasler]

On the Kindle the Author guild can frame their argument as one of licensing since the voice over feature was promoted as a standalone feature for general use...

No they can't. Reading aloud is not one of the exclusive rights of copyright owners.

OH! i hope it stays

[shadowrat]

Starting an ipad reading winnie the pooh at the slowest speed, then hiding it in an air vent at work is one of the greatest gags ever!

Re:OH! i hope it stays

[Yakasha]

I wish I had $800 to blow on gags at work. :(

Re:OH! i hope it stays

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the persons you're trying to prank are actually blonde or deaf. Any normal person would identify the origin of the sound within seconds.

Its getting ridiculous.

[cosm]

The douchers that are hamstringing the text-to-speech providers need to be bitch-slapped, twice.

Re:Its getting ridiculous.

[tehcyder]

Don't tell me, there is actually a little known amendment to the US Constitution which starts that no man shall endeavour to interfere with, or place unnatural limitations upon, the onward march of free-as-in-beer text-to-speech development.

Discrimination???

[stanlyb]

Is it possible for Amazon to open a discrimination lawsuit? I am just asking, it could be interesting to see how it goes on.

Josh

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no comparison between automated text-to-speech (TTS) computer voice "read aloud" and a published audio book with a decent voice actor. It would like a company that makes leather-bound gold-leaf editions of classics getting in an uproar over the fact the project gutenberg makes the e-text available for free. It's really silly for the author's guild to give two flips about either one. I seriously doubt there's *any* evidence that people who buy audiobooks are going to stop buying them because the ebook readers will TTS their books.

Sounds like Apple got em on the payroll

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut down competitors, give Apple a free pass.

After all, iTunes is now the only way to listen to music legally, it only follows iBooks should be the only way to listen to books legally.

I am not speaking to reality, however, as far as the average consumer knows, this is the truth.

These content cartels are always at war (in the press) against distribution services X, Y and Z -- and always praising the be all and end all genius of apple. End result? The consumer, terrified of being labelled a 'warez criminal', and being raided by the FBI, supports only Apple.

The authors guild had no case against Kindle, and they would have none against Apple. They can and do, however, stir up the appropriate hornets nests necessary to cast one in a bad light.

Re:Sounds like Apple got em on the payroll

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not speaking to reality

Obviously.

Robots have Rights too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it then also illegal to read a book aloud to your children at night before they go to bed, or could this be an issue of robot rights?

Re:Robots have Rights too?

[natehoy]

Interesting point. That depends on your interpreted definition of "performance" of the work.

When you purchase a book, you certainly have the right to read it aloud in a noncommercial performance. So, yeah, no one is coming after our respective copies of "Goodnight Moon".

However, Amazon doesn't own a license to read the book for profit. So selling text-only e-books on a device that can actually read them aloud is tantamount to offering a "free audio version" of the book with every e-book sold. That means that Amazon is, in effect, selling unauthorized audio versions of their e-books and not compensating the artist/publisher for same. Sort of.

I'm not saying I agree with this argument, because you could argue just as validly that making the font scalable should be considered unauthorized unless Amazon sells it as a separate large-print book edition.

You think you're buying a right to the text, but the publishers want limits put on those rights so they can sell you other rights separately. Is having a machine read you a book aloud considered an "unauthorized reproduction"? Is it giving you more book than the publishers thought they were authorizing Amazon to sell? Obviously the publishers seem to think so.

But buying a "licensed for text only" book along with a device that can turn it into an audiobook by reading it aloud is a whole new legal concept, and one that blurs the line between text-only books and their higher-priced brethren, audiobooks. And allowing it to be read in a synthesized voice could set a dangerous precedent (from the publisher's point of view) since Amazon could license some good voices and arguably make e-books better than the audiobooks the publishers produce (because you'd get your choice of voices), thereby cutting into audiobook sales, all for a cut-rate e-book margin.

Amazon could even sample an author's voice (as long as sufficient recordings exist) and use that to read the book. What would you pay for a Mark Twain-like voice to read Huck Finn? The publisher would see none of that income. The author might not even see it, unless we are copyrighting voices now, and that could get tricky because you could just hire a voice-actor who sounds similar enough.

How about an algorithm that assigns a voice to each character and reads it off, while dropping the "John said" and "Frank replied" bits, with a neutral narrator voice to fill in the background? That's not very hard to do once you have the book in electronic text format and a little processing power. It would compete with multi-actor complicated audiobooks that cost good money to produce.

  Once the words get out there in electronic form, we can do all sorts of electronic things to them.

Variants like this on written books are pretty much free money sitting on the sidewalk. The publishers want to make sure no one else can pick it up.

I don't think their arguments are correct, but I see where they are coming from and why they'd want to make those arguments, and there are vast cans of worms yet to be opened on this subject.

Re:Robots have Rights too?

[russotto]

However, Amazon doesn't own a license to read the book for profit. So selling text-only e-books on a device that can actually read them aloud is tantamount to offering a "free audio version" of the book with every e-book sold. That means that Amazon is, in effect, selling unauthorized audio versions of their e-books and not compensating the artist/publisher for same. Sort of.

They could provide you with Patrick Stewart to read your book to you, and they STILL wouldn't be violating copyright. No license is required to read a book for profit; the license is required for public performance, not for-profit performance. The 2nd circuit made this point in the Cablevision DVR case.

Re:Robots have Rights too?

[wygit]

Amazon gets sued for providing read-aloud technology on its reader, and Target gets sued, and loses, for NOT having read-aloud capability on its website.

Whose rights dominate?

Re:Robots have Rights too?

[canajin56]

Interesting point. That depends on your interpreted definition of "performance" of the work.

Copyright doesn't give authors exclusive performance rights to their work. It gives them exclusive PUBLIC performance rights. This is held to mean performances made in a public place. I can pay for a pay-per-view event, and invite friends over to watch with me, even though I never bought a public performance license. And, I can even tell them to bring wings or dip or something, and it's still not public. I can even ask them all for a dollar to help me pay for the PPV fee, and it's still not public!

So, along those line (and this should be dead obvious anyways) I am allowed to take a book, and read it to my children. The definition is public performance is actually even more restrictive than just a performance in public. There has to be an element of "performance" to it. That is, a DJ must have a license for public performance in order to play music. However, somebody with a ghetto blaster (unfortunately) doesn't need a license to use his device in a public place. So, given that, I don't need a license from Tor publishing in order to read a book out loud to somebody on a bus or in a park. Since, it's in a public place, but it's not really a performance. (The groups in charge of collecting fees are trying to change this by fiat, as in suing people for not breaking the law, such as going after Girl Guides for allowing their girls to sing campfire songs, and suing resturaunts for having a radio).

At any rate, given that I have the right to read a book out loud in my living room, I have the right to use a device to do it for me. Obviously its easier to make a device that reads an eBook out loud, but if one is legal, they both are. So, an eBook TTS reader has a substantial non-infringing use. The fact that I could also use it in public doesn't make it an illegal device under the DMCA. So, given that it's not an illegal device, there are no grounds for complaint at all. You can argue that Amazon is selling audiobooks without a license, in the same way as you can argue that a cable company that offers a PVR is selling video recordings without a license: poorly. Oh, it's been tried. They lost in court, though. Amazon is not selling audiobooks, they are selling ebooks and a TTS reader. They have a license for the former, and the latter is a legal device.

They are quite writerly to remain silent

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, the Authors Guild Choir makes a lot of noise.

Re:They are quite writerly to remain silent

[stanlyb]

You mean, a lot of wind?

A hard choice for many Slashdotters:

[Kurofuneparry]

Hate on Apple for having the feature while Amazon can't/doesn't or hate on litigious media groups for selective lawsuits?

Two very touchy topics in the /. world!

Me? Oh, I don't discriminate.... I hate everyone! Then again... I'm an idiot ....

Re:A hard choice for many Slashdotters:

[Jarik C-Bol]

I may be the king of idiots, buy my kingdom is vast, and my subjects are everywhere.

The publisher license agreement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it possible that Apple learned from Amazon's mistake and included a clause in its ebook agreement to cover text-to-speech?

Who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knew pissing off disabled folks (like me) wasn't a good idea to drive up business? All they accomplished with their little tantrum was to ensure that any books I buy in the future will be from the used market, to avoid supporting them.

We do seriously live in a society where (if everything could be magically made accessible tomorrow for free), some predatory capitalist goons would still try and charge us disabled folks $1500 for equal access... all the wile claiming to support the rights of disabled folks.

Re:Who knew?

[Smauler]

Who the fuck modded parent down? Seriously... this is very relevant and relatively pertinent. I've not complained about modding before, but you've got to be kidding me.

Writers love Apple

[Sarusa]

Yes, I know there are still a few iconclasts who use Windows (or TeX for the hardcore) but all the published authors I personally know are Apple fanboys. MBPs, Mac Pros (for writing? I know, I know), iPhones, the works. I imagine they don't want to bite the hand that pets them... But I'll ask one why it's okay for Apple and not Amazon.

Amazon owns audio book company

[joabj]

Also, fwiw, Amazon owns Audible, the largest purveyor of spoken word books (or "books on tape" as they used to be called)...

Re:Amazon owns audio book company

[BitZtream]

Now if only Audible didn't suck ass. I'm guessing the authors hate Audible with a passion due to how shitty their products are.

Re:Amazon owns audio book company

[Smauler]

They're (generally) a hell of a lot better than text to speech.

Re:Amazon owns audio book company

[SuiteSisterMary]

What's wrong with Audible? I've been using them since '99, and have always been satisfied. Still have my 64 meg Diamond Rio that I got for signing up with them somewhere....

Oh, that was the title field? labels r nice /.

[Anonymous Coward]

COMMENT FAIL

Google Books/Scholar disputes over a decade

[peter303]

I recall it boiled to down to significant "grey-area" books they were copyrightable (within the 120-year window) but no author or estate claimed the right anymore. Should Google be able to make money charging ads for page views of these books or should the publisher? The massive Google libraries digitization captured many of these grey-area books.
I suspect talking ebooks will take at least a decade to work out also.

Why the Author's Guild Shouldn't Care At All

[jguice]

There's no comparison between automated text-to-speech (TTS) computer voice "read aloud" and a published audio book with a decent voice actor. It would like a company that makes leather-bound gold-leaf editions of classics getting in an uproar over the fact the project gutenberg makes the e-text available for free. It's really silly for the author's guild to give two flips about either one. I seriously doubt there's *any* evidence that people who buy audiobooks are going to stop buying them because the ebook readers will TTS their books. [repost as myself]

Re:Why the Author's Guild Shouldn't Care At All

[TheDawgLives]

To further this point, turning on the iPhone's "VoiceOver" feature required to listen to audio books makes the iPhone near impossible to use. Maybe the writer's guild decided that no sane person would turn it on unless they were REALLY visually impaired...

Re:Why the Author's Guild Shouldn't Care At All

[jwalz]

Yes but what stops somebody from recording words for the computer to use as it converts text to speech? To make it even easier on the computer they could record the words in the same order they are written in the book.

The Kindle sells a lot more...

[BlackCreek]

Anecdotal evidence from at least one author doing self publishing puts the Kindle selling 60x more than Apple's ibook:

Publishers might be looking at enriched or enhanced ebooks as their new big-ticket items to replace hardcovers. But the major ebook retailer, Amazon, isn't set up for video. Kindle isn't even able to do color yet. That leaves Apple, and according to my numbers Apple is a very small part of the ebook market. I sell 200 ebooks a day on Kindle. On iPad, I sell 100 a month.

Re:The Kindle sells a lot more...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Anecdotal evidence from at least

And, indeed, at most.

> one author doing self publishing puts the Kindle selling 60x more than Apple's ibook

Re:The Kindle sells a lot more...

[clone53421]

Erm... his evidence showed that “at least” one e-book’s Kindle version was outselling the iBook version.

What evidence did you give to show that “at most” one e-book’s Kindle version is outselling the iBook version?

Oh... you didn’t.

The idea was bad, they had no right

[gurps_npc]

They had no business bring suit and I hope they have realized it. There is a difference between a copy of a book in a different format and a program that translates something into a different format. Is the rights holder of a German version of Harry Potter going to sue someone that writes a computer program that translates English into German? No of course not.

Re:The idea was bad, they had no right

[John Hasler]

They had no business bring suit and I hope they have realized it. There is a difference between a copy of a book in a different format and a program that translates something into a different format.

But we aren't talking about software that creates a copy in a different format or language. This is software that reads the book out loud to you. No copy is created and none of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner are infringed. The very notion that they could have a claim here is laughable.

Re:The idea was bad, they had no right

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are agreeing with someone you don't usually start off with "but".

What is Text-To-Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is Text-To-Speech? Speech synthesis, also called text-to-speech, is the simulation of human speech. Speech is the most important means of communication between humans. Sought after to improve communication and assist those with certain disabilities, text-to-speech has proven to be a challenging undertaking. Much progress has been made in recent years to improve the quality of simulated speech. You can read more about Text-To-Speech here. Its a great resource that I just found.

Re:What is Text-To-Speech?

[natehoy]

Hmm, I took your post above and ran it through text-to-speech and all I got was this old screechy voice screaming "SPAM, SPAM, EGGS, AND SPAM! IT HASN'T GOT AS MUCH SPAM IN IT!"

I think the technology is further along than one might assume.

Perhaps Apple isn't afaraid of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon likely cares more about the goodwill of the author's guild than they do about a single feature of the kindle (a product intended to promote ebook sales). Apple on the other hand probably cares a lot more about the feature list of the iPad than they do about the good will of the author's guild (since they only sell ebooks as a marketing tool to drive the sales of iPads). If the author's guild is aware of this, and their legal position on the matter is anything but rock solid they may have chosen not to stick their necks out.

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!

[sharkey]

My kindergartner is being exposed to this sort of copyright infringement EVERY DAY! Not only is there text-to-speech conversion at school (the teacher, who should be providing a better example) but they expect ME to convert text-to-speech at home and READ ALOUD to my kids! When will someone put a stop to this nefarious reading of books aloud?

Re:Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this insightful? Why? Are you ALL fsking idiots?

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't publishers see the difference between a synthesized voice and an audiobook?

It would be like the difference between Stephen Hawking and your grandmother reading you a book.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stephen Hawking IS my grandmother, you insen . . wait

Re:Really?

[tehcyder]

It would be like the difference between Stephen Hawking and your grandmother reading you a book.

Well, both my grandmothers are dead, so I guess it's a win for Stephen Hawking.

Removed?

[R.Mo_Robert]

feature that debuted in the Amazon Kindle and was then removed

No, it wasn't. It was disabled on select books if and only if the publisher specificially demanded it.

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" comes to mind.

[Yoshamano]

"Some animals are more equal than others."

Not so 'future'

[Anonymous Coward]

> didn't take future technology into account.

I had a BBC Master in the early 80s with a ROM chip that did plain text to speech very effectively. It could have read out books if I had them as text files so for nearly 30 years the technology has been available.

It didn't have a touch screen though.

The guild doesn't care because it sucks so bad

[n5yat]

Just for fun I enabled the text-to-speech on my iPad. It's so bad, it's laughable. The guild has nothing to worry about because only someone desperate would use that sucky text-to-speech instead of a good audio book.

Re:The guild doesn't care because it sucks so bad

[Radical Moderate]

I don't get why text to speech is so bad. Has anyone made a reader that, rather than trying to pronounce text, just uses a database of prerecorded words? A single-word wav file takes about 7k. There are roughly 200,000 words in the English language. That works out to 1.4 gigs. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard, although you'd probably have to pay Sean Connery a lot to pronounce the whole dictionary. So hire a few Connery imitators, who can't do a passable Connery?

Re:The guild doesn't care because it sucks so bad

[pregister]

Honestly, it wouldn't be much better than current text-to-speech. The problem isn't the computer voice...sure, its cheesy but I could get used to that. The problem is everything else. The phrasing, the intonation, the flow of the words. These are things that make TTS laughable. A database of some voice actor reading every word in the language wouldn't help this at all.

Re:The guild doesn't care because it sucks so bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Try doing it yourself, and you'll see why your idea doesn't work. In most languages (all?) spoken words run together at least a little. If you record each word separately, it will sound horribly choppy. Then, there's inflection, rising and falling pitch, and probably at least a few other parameters that (good) speech synthesis software does very well. I think the most natural-sounding synthesis uses humans to record the various phonemes in the language, and then assembles (and modifies) them to produce words. That's sort of like your idea, but it allows the pronunciation of words to vary.
Also, even if it did work, not all devices have anywhere near the sort of storage you're talking about.

Re:The guild doesn't care because it sucks so bad

[tehcyder]

If it was that simple don't you think someone would have done it already?

You may not have noticed, but the sound of words varies according to context, mood and so on.

For example the sentences "You are a fucking moron" and "You are a fucking moron" and "You are a fucking moron" all mean slightly different things and are pronounced with different emphases.

Re:The guild doesn't care because it sucks so bad

[SuiteSisterMary]

Also, *angry*You are a fucking moron!!!!, *sigh*You are a fucking moron and *laughing* You are a fucking moron all convey drastically different ideas.

That said, listening to, say, a Sci-Fi book being read by Stephen Rudnicki, who is awesome, but occassionaly reads 'delta-V' as 'delta-5' and 'regen' (short for regeneration) as 'reagen' (former president) is just funny.

Perhaps they got it past the guild using....

[Anonymous Coward]

Payolla?

Speak & Spell

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I have the ability to buy a 10$ paper back book and have it read to me, why the hell would I buy the 40$ audio book?"

Would you sit through a 3 hour movie where the main actor was a speak & spell?

It may be an inflated price, but that is what your extra $30 is partly going to, voice acting.

That being said, I don't know what the Author's guild is up in arms about. I don't think that people who want to sit through 4+ hours of monotone text-to-speech translation is their market anyways. God knows I couldn't stand that.

Re:Speak & Spell

[gknoy]

"Would you sit through a 3 hour movie where the main actor was a speak & spell?"
Well, only if it had spectacular cinematograhy set to something powerful like Richard Strauss. Nobody'd be crazy enough to do that, though.

Re:Speak & Spell

[kimvette]

Would you sit through a 3 hour movie where the main actor was a speak & spell?

Well, I have seen Keanu Reeves films. I think that's a fairly close comparison. ;)

Avatar Readings

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me up when the software is capable of reading the book by the use of an avatar speaking it to me. And then of course it must use multiple avatars to act out the action in the text.
Then put it on my TV... because that is about the only way any author is going to get my hard earned money.
limit/charge for Text to Speech??? I won't even pay for the text.

Wake up authors... if you don't embrace the media then you will not have a voice (aka: profits).
ie: the media is the message. Embrace the medium or... no message.

Not Just Apple

[kmassare]

Microsoft Reader also has text-to-speech. I've not heard of any complaints about that either.

ADA

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hope that the Author's Guild would get creamed by the courts under the American's with Disabilities Act. By stopping book readers from vocalizing they are hurting visually impaired (e.g., BLIND) people from accessing books, the web, etc. It sucks to be wrong. It sucks to be the Guild.

Not scarier - down to marketing

[Roger W Moore]

The difference is not the company it is how the feature is marketed. With Amazon they marketed it as a standard feature for everyone to use. What Apple have done is far more cunning by only enabling the feature when the voice over feature for blind users is turned on. If the Author's guild complained about it they would not only get horrendous publicity but since the feature is clearly aimed at helping blind people deliberately blocking it would possibly be illegal in many countries including the US....but I suspect the publicity alone would be enough to stop them.

Author's guild

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a side to the text-to-speech story that has been completely left out. Amazon completely screws authors in the process of selling e-books. So does Barnes and Noble. Any author who is less famous than Steven Hawking makes only miniscule amounts of money from the sale of e-books. An authoress friend of mine has told me that she makes approximately 10 cents whenever a copy of her $10 e-book is sold on the Kindle. Compare that to the 70% of any sale that iBooks leaves to the Author. My friend makes much more money from the print editions of her books. It's also worth noting that audiobooks are a status symbol for authors, and can increase their fame and reader base. Considering that Amazon was simultaneously screwing authors fiscally, and depriving authors of the hope of getting a published audiobook, is it such a surprise that the Author's Guild sued?

Re:Author's guild

[geminidomino]

How is that "a side to the text-to-speech story?" It's got nothing whatsoever to do with TTS.

As one who just went through this....

[geekman]

I recently published a Speculative Fiction book in March. And when things started to go a little bit south with my publisher, I realized that I had made some critical errors when I signed the contract which I did.

1. They had all my rights. Print, audio, electronic, foreign, etc.
2. They weren't doing anything with the rights except for print. And I was stuck... I couldn't do anything with electronic or audio rights myself.

What I learned:

1. Keep all the rights you can when you sell a manuscript to a publisher.
2. If the publisher wants a particular right, make them justify it. Put "performance metrics" in the contract so that they have to perform with the right given, or it reverts back to the author. And, don't make it open ended. Put a time limit on those rights.

Why?

Authors are realizing that audio and electronic rights are very, very valuable. But so are publishers. They are fighting to keep control of those rights. Audio can be expensive to produce at first, but electronic is nearly without cost. Once the typesetting and formatting is done for the print run, converting the book to e-reader formats is easy. It took me less than a day to convert mine. Every sale after that is pure profit. This is why publishers are scrambling to retain control. In many cases, their business models are not supported by the traditional methods very well, and they need this extra income to stay afloat.

I predict that authors and agents will continue to become more savvy in these areas, and therefore, the contracts they demand of the big publishers will continue to be better written, year after year. Authors will then find themselves protected by contracts which are fair, well written, and sane. This can only help promote technology... and audio will eventually become accepted on all e-readers. That is what I think will happen. Especially if it helps to sell books, no matter what format the book comes in.

Text-to-speech can no longer be blocked

[leonardjf]

Last month, the US Copyright Office ruled that publishers must permit text-to-speech in eBooks, although they have the option to charge more for speech-enabled versions. The Copyright Office's rule will stay in place for at least three years. This is most likely the reason why the Authors Guild hasn't protested. Here's the link: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html .