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

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?

[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.

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?

[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?

[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).

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.

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.

Its getting ridiculous.

[cosm]

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

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.

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: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.

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: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: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: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: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: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. ;)

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