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

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?

[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.

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

[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

[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: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?

[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