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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

Its getting ridiculous.

[cosm]

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

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?

[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.

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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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: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: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: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.

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?