Or e-books are not made at all, because nobody is willing to compensate the authors at the rate that the authors would minimally like to be compensated for e-books.
All that means is that at the given price, demand is zero. Which means that the price is too high.
I can think of one exception that is perfectly fair: Amazon should not offer TTS in Kindle if its agreements with the content providers forbid it from doing so.
But that's a contractual obligation. Sure, if publishers can manage to get Amazon to sign a contract saying that, go for it. What I want to stress is that this is not the place for legislators to come in and say "No one shall produce a device both capable of displaying e-books and offering TTS capability because of concern for copyright law."
And clearly an unauthorized commercial performance is infringement.
First of all, performance is not at issue (it's "audio rights", which implicate a kind of derivative work), but if it were, the issue would not be performance, or "commercial performance", but "public performance" which isn't the typical use of text-to-speech. If you were using your Kindle to read a book aloud to an auditorium full of people, public performance would be at issue.
The problem we're having is that we think that because the reading is done by a machine, that it's not a performance.
No, the issue is that TTS technology, even when distributed with an e-book, does not constitute a derivative work. It can't, because TTS doesn't fix the audio in any permanent form.
So yes, the Kindle 2 is violating copyright. Yes it is infringing on the author's right to license audio book copies.
No. First of all, the "Kindle 2" isn't violating anyone's copyright - people or entities violate copyright, not devices. We might use devices to do it, and those devices might be outlawed, but that's different.
Secondly, TTS doesn't infringe on an author's right to license audio book copies, because TTS doesn't make copies (copies have to be fixed, remember?). If TTS adds value to an e-book, then publishers simply need to increase the licensing fees for e-books, and the problem is solved. I don't think this is an issue for copyright law at all.
Then here's a question for the class -- if TTS is considered a derivative work,
I can't see how TTS could be considered a derivative work. The copyrights on derivative works are owned by the original copyright holder. TTS doesn't transform the original work in a way that's fixed in a tangible medium of expression. On the other hand, if you recorded the output of your TTS device reading a copyrighted work, then you'd have a derivative work.
and it's entirely the product of a machine, is the claim based on the principle that machines can create infringing artistic works by themselves with effectively no human input? Is copyright extended only to humans, or are we implicitly granting this capability to a nonsentient entity?
Whoa, slow down there. People can use mechanical/technological aids to create derivative works, but it's still a person who does it. If Amazon recorded the output of the TTS, then Amazon would be creating it. If I recorded it, I'd be creating the derivative work. No need to get all metaphysical on us:-)
Amazon is indeed advertising these products as an audio book(the rights of which are worth far more currently than the rights for an e-book) and an e-book in one w/o paying for the rights to sell an audio book. The audio functions of the books are coming closer to human levels and are being marketed and sold as such.
Why even invoke copyright law (which he does by talking about "audio rights")? If Blunt and others think that e-books on a device with text-to-speech are worth more, then license them at a higher price. Then, if Amazon doesn't buy them, reduce the price until they do. This is what a market is for!
If TTS on e-book readers becomes ubiquitous (as I expect it will), well, then they'll have to learn license and price e-book rights better.
Exactly. Obviously, if Amazon violated some contractual agreement by distributing a TTS device with the e-book, that's a different story, but the simple (and correct) solution is for publishers to try charging higher prices and see if the market bears it.
But selling a device with text-to-speech capability isn't the same as selling an audiobook. An audiobook is a derivative work. A device with TTS capability is not a derivative work (well, we'd probably have to have a court case to tell us for sure, but I don't think it is).
Here's my logic: The original copyright holder gets copyright in derivative works. But copyright requires that a work be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Simply providing TTS doesn't do that. As soon as the output of TTS is saved on a tape or as an MP3 file, then you have a derivative work, but that's not what Amazon is doing with the Kindle.
Blount is just saying that publisher's need to charge kindle's e-book rights at a rate closer to audiobook rates. And if Amazon does not like that then they need to stop offering the audio conversion.
This is where you go astray. If Amazon doesn't like the higher rates, they should stop purchasing the rights. If they stop purchasing, the publishers will have to reduce rates to the point where they start purchasing again. This way, the rights are priced according to their actual value.
In no case should Amazon be forced to stop offering text-to-speech capability. Merely including TTS technology itself does not constitute creating and distributing a derivative work (it's up to the user to do that). I am dead set against copyright holders meddling with the kind of technology others can and can't produce, though it does happen (see SCMS for one example). That's the sort of approach that will lead to the banning of the fast-forward button.
On the other hand, copyright holders are free to try and license their works for a higher price if they think it has a higher value. If it really does, then Amazon and consumers will be willing to pay more.
He is also not saying that this is a copyright violation. What he explicitly said is that the kindle creates extra value for the work. In return the people who created the material should share in that extra value.
Actually, I think that's exactly what he's saying. From the op-ed:
Audio rights are not generally packaged with e-book rights. They are more valuable than e-book rights. Income from audio books helps not inconsiderably to keep authors, and publishers, afloat.
Since the e-book license (to Amazon) doesn't include audio rights, if this ever went to court, I would think it would be a matter of copyright infringement - Amazon doesn't have audio rights, just as they don't have movie rights, and would be in violation of copyright if they produced a movie based on the e-book.
That said, the obvious solution is just to try and charge Amazon (or anyone else) more for the e-book license when it can be used on a device with TTS. If it's really that valuable, Amazon and their customers will pay. No need to even involve copyright law.
The guy has a perfectly reasonable point. Decent TTS in a widely-used device will basically kill the audiobook market, and authors should be compensated in some way for the revenue lost there.
Why? Copyright holders receive royalties on audiobooks because audiobooks are a derivative work. That makes sense. TTS technology is not a derivative work. It allows you to create a derivative work, but so do a pair of scissors.
You're right, TTS obviates the need for a derivative work, but that is not the same as actually being a derivative work. Copyright law doesn't exist to compensate authors for the fact that there's no longer demand for a derivative work. If they want to take that consideration into account when they set their licensing fees, fine, but honestly I don't even see how copyright law is implicated here.
If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct. As others have pointed out, the sense of the word decimate has changed. You're committing a version of the etymological fallacy. From the OED:
decimate: 4. transf. a. To kill, destroy, or remove one in every ten of. b. rhetorically or loosely. To destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality.
There's a fair bit of revisionist history in the summary, too, or at least it's misleading:
Thirty years ago, Hollywood took a similar threat â" the VCR â" and turned it into a new source of revenue, building customer loyalty in the process.
I'm sure most people here know it, but Hollywood didn't take the VCR and turn it into a new source of revenue. Universal sued Sony over the Betamax, hoping to litigate it into oblivion, lost, and were dragged kicking and screaming into a new era and way of making money. Remember Jack Valenti's comment about the VCR being to the film industry what the Boston strangler is to the woman at home alone?
Right - I just assumed that if they were using 9999 as the default, then it wasn't a valid number. But apparently it is, which just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous:-)
I was referring to the fact that after he called AT&T, they reduced his bill to "only" $6000, and it took media involvement to get them to actually fix the bill.
As I suspected, TFA says he was connected to the ship's cell network, which should not have been operational while it was docked.
So it's not just me having horrible experiences with AT&T, then. I tried to get DSL service from them last year. After four technician visits, I had service for two full days before it stopped working. I canceled service and returned the equipment in their postage-paid box, and they sent me a $70 bill. I called to complain, and told them I was willing to pay for the two days I had service, and nothing more. They told me they'd look into it, but they had no way of sending me a corrected bill. I did not pay them a penny, and I have not heard from them again.
We also had phone service with them for a bit. When I set it up, I specifically asked for unlimited calling to Canada, and was assured it was on the plan. I called back again for another reason, and was again assured that I had unlimited calling to Canada. Next month's bill? $1200. They had not added unlimited calling to Canada. It took me about a half-dozen calls to sort it out, during which time I was told that it was impossible for me to talk to anyone who was capable of modifying my bill, because "they don't have phone numbers."
I recently had to deal with AT&T Wireless, and was asked to verify my identity. I provided my information, and they told me it was incorrect. I told them they were incorrect. After about two hours of phone calls, it turns out they were using a default value for the information they asked for. When I provided the actual value, they looked at the default, and said that I was wrong. Apparently they could not figure out that "9999" was probably not the actual last 4 digits of anyone's SSN.
That may be true, but there is a branch of government whose sole purpose for existing is to interpret the Founding Fathers' intention in the words of the Constitution.
That's what some judges do, depending on their judicial philosophy, but it's by no means clear that the purpose of SCOTUS is to interpret the Founding Father's intentions.
You are free to negotiate a license with the FCC for a portion of the spectrum where you can say "fuck" all you like. The FCC is free to impose restrictions, within the authority granted to them by Congress, on what you can do with the spectrum they license you. What's so hard to understand about this?
If you don't like the rules, you're free to call your Congresspeople and ask to have them changed. Just remember, you'll also be up against the Ned Flanders types who call to complain every time they see a buttocks on TV.
Better yet, you're free to go print up your own leaflets at your own expense, with all the profanity you like, and thereby distribute them on a medium not shared by every member of the public.
I wonder if this will be anything like Windows Live Sync, which is quite useful.
Live Sync doesn't have any sort of DRM as far as I'm aware, but I believe there are limits on file size and total number of files. In any case, I use it to keep several hundred documents synced transparently between my XP desktop and OS X laptop.
No. Taking a picture of your house isn't "copying" it. Taking the plans of your house and building an exact copy of it _might_ be a violation of copyright.
Because we signed the Berne Convention, we recognize copyright in architectural works. However, we make exceptions for photographs, etc., of buildings that are in public places.
Okay, I'm just going to give up. Pedants win. Marxist was making a simple point, which you missed with pedantry. I tried to rub your nose in it and you missed that point, too.
There's nothing pedantic about it. OP claims that a contract without a signature is absurd. OP is clearly ignorant that courts have and do enforce oral contracts. Oral contracts aren't "absurd." Agreements aren't nullified just because they aren't written down on paper.
A signed paper contract will be better, as you pointed out, because you probably won't have to go as far in litigation, but that old quote that "an oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on" is simply wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Or e-books are not made at all, because nobody is willing to compensate the authors at the rate that the authors would minimally like to be compensated for e-books.
All that means is that at the given price, demand is zero. Which means that the price is too high.
I can think of one exception that is perfectly fair: Amazon should not offer TTS in Kindle if its agreements with the content providers forbid it from doing so.
But that's a contractual obligation. Sure, if publishers can manage to get Amazon to sign a contract saying that, go for it. What I want to stress is that this is not the place for legislators to come in and say "No one shall produce a device both capable of displaying e-books and offering TTS capability because of concern for copyright law."
And clearly an unauthorized commercial performance is infringement.
First of all, performance is not at issue (it's "audio rights", which implicate a kind of derivative work), but if it were, the issue would not be performance, or "commercial performance", but "public performance" which isn't the typical use of text-to-speech. If you were using your Kindle to read a book aloud to an auditorium full of people, public performance would be at issue.
The problem we're having is that we think that because the reading is done by a machine, that it's not a performance.
No, the issue is that TTS technology, even when distributed with an e-book, does not constitute a derivative work. It can't, because TTS doesn't fix the audio in any permanent form.
So yes, the Kindle 2 is violating copyright. Yes it is infringing on the author's right to license audio book copies.
No. First of all, the "Kindle 2" isn't violating anyone's copyright - people or entities violate copyright, not devices. We might use devices to do it, and those devices might be outlawed, but that's different.
Secondly, TTS doesn't infringe on an author's right to license audio book copies, because TTS doesn't make copies (copies have to be fixed, remember?). If TTS adds value to an e-book, then publishers simply need to increase the licensing fees for e-books, and the problem is solved. I don't think this is an issue for copyright law at all.
Then here's a question for the class -- if TTS is considered a derivative work,
I can't see how TTS could be considered a derivative work. The copyrights on derivative works are owned by the original copyright holder. TTS doesn't transform the original work in a way that's fixed in a tangible medium of expression. On the other hand, if you recorded the output of your TTS device reading a copyrighted work, then you'd have a derivative work.
and it's entirely the product of a machine, is the claim based on the principle that machines can create infringing artistic works by themselves with effectively no human input? Is copyright extended only to humans, or are we implicitly granting this capability to a nonsentient entity?
Whoa, slow down there. People can use mechanical/technological aids to create derivative works, but it's still a person who does it. If Amazon recorded the output of the TTS, then Amazon would be creating it. If I recorded it, I'd be creating the derivative work. No need to get all metaphysical on us :-)
Amazon is indeed advertising these products as an audio book(the rights of which are worth far more currently than the rights for an e-book) and an e-book in one w/o paying for the rights to sell an audio book. The audio functions of the books are coming closer to human levels and are being marketed and sold as such.
Why even invoke copyright law (which he does by talking about "audio rights")? If Blunt and others think that e-books on a device with text-to-speech are worth more, then license them at a higher price. Then, if Amazon doesn't buy them, reduce the price until they do. This is what a market is for!
If TTS on e-book readers becomes ubiquitous (as I expect it will), well, then they'll have to learn license and price e-book rights better.
Exactly. Obviously, if Amazon violated some contractual agreement by distributing a TTS device with the e-book, that's a different story, but the simple (and correct) solution is for publishers to try charging higher prices and see if the market bears it.
But selling a device with text-to-speech capability isn't the same as selling an audiobook. An audiobook is a derivative work. A device with TTS capability is not a derivative work (well, we'd probably have to have a court case to tell us for sure, but I don't think it is).
Here's my logic: The original copyright holder gets copyright in derivative works. But copyright requires that a work be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Simply providing TTS doesn't do that. As soon as the output of TTS is saved on a tape or as an MP3 file, then you have a derivative work, but that's not what Amazon is doing with the Kindle.
Blount is just saying that publisher's need to charge kindle's e-book rights at a rate closer to audiobook rates. And if Amazon does not like that then they need to stop offering the audio conversion.
This is where you go astray. If Amazon doesn't like the higher rates, they should stop purchasing the rights. If they stop purchasing, the publishers will have to reduce rates to the point where they start purchasing again. This way, the rights are priced according to their actual value.
In no case should Amazon be forced to stop offering text-to-speech capability. Merely including TTS technology itself does not constitute creating and distributing a derivative work (it's up to the user to do that). I am dead set against copyright holders meddling with the kind of technology others can and can't produce, though it does happen (see SCMS for one example). That's the sort of approach that will lead to the banning of the fast-forward button.
On the other hand, copyright holders are free to try and license their works for a higher price if they think it has a higher value. If it really does, then Amazon and consumers will be willing to pay more.
Licenses are for publishers, not end users. I don't licence a book, I buy a copy.
And his gripe isn't with you, the end user, it's with Amazon, the licensee.
He is also not saying that this is a copyright violation. What he explicitly said is that the kindle creates extra value for the work. In return the people who created the material should share in that extra value.
Actually, I think that's exactly what he's saying. From the op-ed:
Audio rights are not generally packaged with e-book rights. They are more valuable than e-book rights. Income from audio books helps not inconsiderably to keep authors, and publishers, afloat.
Since the e-book license (to Amazon) doesn't include audio rights, if this ever went to court, I would think it would be a matter of copyright infringement - Amazon doesn't have audio rights, just as they don't have movie rights, and would be in violation of copyright if they produced a movie based on the e-book.
That said, the obvious solution is just to try and charge Amazon (or anyone else) more for the e-book license when it can be used on a device with TTS. If it's really that valuable, Amazon and their customers will pay. No need to even involve copyright law.
The guy has a perfectly reasonable point. Decent TTS in a widely-used device will basically kill the audiobook market, and authors should be compensated in some way for the revenue lost there.
Why? Copyright holders receive royalties on audiobooks because audiobooks are a derivative work. That makes sense. TTS technology is not a derivative work. It allows you to create a derivative work, but so do a pair of scissors.
You're right, TTS obviates the need for a derivative work, but that is not the same as actually being a derivative work. Copyright law doesn't exist to compensate authors for the fact that there's no longer demand for a derivative work. If they want to take that consideration into account when they set their licensing fees, fine, but honestly I don't even see how copyright law is implicated here.
Yeah, public.resource.org is incredibly useful; I use bulk.resource.org to read appellate and Supreme court opinions all the time.
It's something we /.ers ought to be making more use of - instead of just opining on the law, we can actually link to and read opinions.
decimate: 4. transf. a. To kill, destroy, or remove one in every ten of. b. rhetorically or loosely. To destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality.
Thirty years ago, Hollywood took a similar threat â" the VCR â" and turned it into a new source of revenue, building customer loyalty in the process.
I'm sure most people here know it, but Hollywood didn't take the VCR and turn it into a new source of revenue. Universal sued Sony over the Betamax, hoping to litigate it into oblivion, lost, and were dragged kicking and screaming into a new era and way of making money. Remember Jack Valenti's comment about the VCR being to the film industry what the Boston strangler is to the woman at home alone?
Right - I just assumed that if they were using 9999 as the default, then it wasn't a valid number. But apparently it is, which just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous :-)
Well, if that's the case, then they shouldn't be using 9999 as the default!
I was referring to the fact that after he called AT&T, they reduced his bill to "only" $6000, and it took media involvement to get them to actually fix the bill.
As I suspected, TFA says he was connected to the ship's cell network, which should not have been operational while it was docked.
So it's not just me having horrible experiences with AT&T, then. I tried to get DSL service from them last year. After four technician visits, I had service for two full days before it stopped working. I canceled service and returned the equipment in their postage-paid box, and they sent me a $70 bill. I called to complain, and told them I was willing to pay for the two days I had service, and nothing more. They told me they'd look into it, but they had no way of sending me a corrected bill. I did not pay them a penny, and I have not heard from them again.
We also had phone service with them for a bit. When I set it up, I specifically asked for unlimited calling to Canada, and was assured it was on the plan. I called back again for another reason, and was again assured that I had unlimited calling to Canada. Next month's bill? $1200. They had not added unlimited calling to Canada. It took me about a half-dozen calls to sort it out, during which time I was told that it was impossible for me to talk to anyone who was capable of modifying my bill, because "they don't have phone numbers."
I recently had to deal with AT&T Wireless, and was asked to verify my identity. I provided my information, and they told me it was incorrect. I told them they were incorrect. After about two hours of phone calls, it turns out they were using a default value for the information they asked for. When I provided the actual value, they looked at the default, and said that I was wrong. Apparently they could not figure out that "9999" was probably not the actual last 4 digits of anyone's SSN.
According to the NYT, that's pretty much what happened: NASA Satellite Lands in Ocean
That may be true, but there is a branch of government whose sole purpose for existing is to interpret the Founding Fathers' intention in the words of the Constitution.
That's what some judges do, depending on their judicial philosophy, but it's by no means clear that the purpose of SCOTUS is to interpret the Founding Father's intentions.
You are free to negotiate a license with the FCC for a portion of the spectrum where you can say "fuck" all you like. The FCC is free to impose restrictions, within the authority granted to them by Congress, on what you can do with the spectrum they license you. What's so hard to understand about this?
If you don't like the rules, you're free to call your Congresspeople and ask to have them changed. Just remember, you'll also be up against the Ned Flanders types who call to complain every time they see a buttocks on TV.
Better yet, you're free to go print up your own leaflets at your own expense, with all the profanity you like, and thereby distribute them on a medium not shared by every member of the public.
Saying "Fuck" is most definitely speech; why can the FCC ban that on public radio waves?
Because while you have a right to freedom of speech, you don't have a right to express yourself without restriction on publicly owned airwaves.
I wonder if this will be anything like Windows Live Sync, which is quite useful.
Live Sync doesn't have any sort of DRM as far as I'm aware, but I believe there are limits on file size and total number of files. In any case, I use it to keep several hundred documents synced transparently between my XP desktop and OS X laptop.
No. Taking a picture of your house isn't "copying" it. Taking the plans of your house and building an exact copy of it _might_ be a violation of copyright.
Because we signed the Berne Convention, we recognize copyright in architectural works. However, we make exceptions for photographs, etc., of buildings that are in public places.
Okay, I'm just going to give up. Pedants win. Marxist was making a simple point, which you missed with pedantry. I tried to rub your nose in it and you missed that point, too.
There's nothing pedantic about it. OP claims that a contract without a signature is absurd. OP is clearly ignorant that courts have and do enforce oral contracts. Oral contracts aren't "absurd." Agreements aren't nullified just because they aren't written down on paper.
A signed paper contract will be better, as you pointed out, because you probably won't have to go as far in litigation, but that old quote that "an oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on" is simply wrong.
Good luck taking an oral contract to court with no evidence that it took place.
Sorry, but show me where I said that courts would enforce an oral contract with no evidence that it took place?
My point is that contracts without signatures do exist, and will be enforced by courts.