In all seriousness though, being fat is far more effective reproductively than being skinny. At least before the modern times. Possibly this is why so many early human cultures had a proliferation of those Wilendorf Venus figurines - of hugely fat women.
Not only is being fat a physical marker of a successful organism (i.e. one that is more than able to provide for itself - regardless of whether the calories came from its own hunting/gathering or were gifts from males/others), it also marks that one has the means/ability to provide for many children. This makes it more likely children from this mother will survive-- not starve to death. If you were looking for a mate with whom your offspring were most likely to survive, suddenly it seems logical you'd choose a fattie.
Man, you should see some of the contracts that insurance companies make you sign. It's not dumb to sign a contract of insurance in good faith having read the terms which seem entirely reasonable. Then after 20 years of premiums, it comes time for the insurance company to pay up, and they invoke some technicality against you that you know is patently false and/or is a totally ridiculous interpretation of either the contract or what actually happened. Then you get screwed. Then you can't file a lawsuit because your house has burned down, and you have no money.
If you knew how often this scenario happens, you'd never sign another insurance contract.
Just to show how glib statements like the one you made above are kind of silly. You can't over-generalize a situation you have little expertise in and then call the whole thing dumb. That's dumb.
Things that seem "obviously flawed" in hindsight often weren't so at the time they happened. Processes that seem totally reasonable at first glance can, in strange or unexpected or unusual circumstances, become patently UNreasonable.
It's not subverting the democratic process. People didn't show up to vote. That's part of the democratic process: being dependent on the dedication level of your representative. Oops.
Paying someone to show up and represent you may seem like a good idea until they don't bother showing up. Then you have a problem.
Subverting the democratic process would be ignoring quorum rules, or having a minority and favour but passing legislation regardless, or using un-constitutionally mandated powers of veto, or letting one person's vote (i.e. a President's) outweigh the majority votes of others present.
This isn't a sneaky trick (in fact it's nothing new-- US politics has a history of moments like this one too). It is merely taking advantage of the fact that certain individuals (who obviously didn't care enough about the legislation to read the agenda or make sure they were present) did not show up to work one evening to pass legislation they might have cared about - but who knows, since they didn't show up.
It's important to ensure blame goes where it is deserved. This isn't the democratic process at fault here: it's people not showing up for work. If it's stupid to have late night legislation passing meetings, then deal with that. The democratic process has lots of change mechanisms-- that's its strength. Democracy is only meaningful if people participate, so if people don't participate, don't blame democracy.
Her Majesty. Not Royal Highness. The latter is a title reserved for those in direct male line to the throne, not the incumbent. Prince William is Royal Highness. Charles is Royal Highness. The Queen is Majesty.
Anyone else grossed out by the thought that someone else's DNA (god knows how it got there-- I shudder to think) is on your cotton swabs?? I know where *I* put those swabs... I certainly don't want someone else's DNA to go where I put those swabs...
Indeed-- really makes you view the Net Neutrality debate with a new eye, too!
I can just imagine what would happen to games like Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto etc. when you yank them out of the hands of consumers directly and put them effectively in the domain of ISPs / NIMBYs who decide your source should be throttled... think of the children!!
So given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the dual matter/wave nature of electromagnetic waves, and Young's double slit experiment and the effects that observation has on such phenomena (collapsing the wave function for example)... you're still saying that the less we can measure, the less we can understand it?
I thought that our not being able to measure something has, in fact, created a scientific revolution this last century. But hey, that's just me.
Just an example of how not being able to measure something in fact increased our understanding. A lot.
If the questions are the intellectual property of the person whose agent contacted you with the takedown notice, I'd informally recommend that you really think hard about leaving it on your website. You can't really just decide all by yourself that your use of the property is covered under US fair use provisions. If the issue is important to you, you should consult a lawyer to determine whether the use is indeed covered under fair use.
Fair use is a pretty limited defence for copyright infringement. There may be case law that defines the scope of the defence. I can't comment on US law but in Canada for example factors are whether the use is for private study and research, and how much of the work you've taken. In addition the fact that you've re-published the work on a public website is likely really important. You may have the right to "fair use" but you certainly don't have the right to republish to the entire world, unless you've got a really, really good reason.
The takedown notice indicates the owner is interested in protecting its property, which means you might indeed be sued. So, I'd take it seriously. As Slashdot knows, the courts have been pretty sympathetic to owners of intellectual property lately. Do you really want to be on the pointy end of the sword? Is this the hill you want to die on?
See a lawyer. Or, take it down. You said you used 75 or so questions out of 550 ish? Sounds like more than 10% which is sometimes used as a threshhold for fair use (again, at least in Canada).
Right, and if you don't want to pay Caterpillar for their advanced tractor technology to harvest your field in a day, you can always spend 2 weeks and pay 18 other people to do it by hand.
People should pay for the use of technology which betters their lives. If you don't want to pay, do it your own way. Otherwise, if you don't reward people for inventing useful things, they just won't invent them.
Hey I don't know if I'm just not being clear or if you're just not understanding what I'm saying. Public performance is a type of copyright. When you have copyright on a work you can have copyrights on different parts of it. Text, audio recording, public performance. You can buy one or all of the above, but you can't distribute any audio of the work if you haven't purchased the audio right. They're all forms of copyright.
Every book purchased has been licensed for digital text distribution. It has NOT been licensed for audio format distribution.
They are selling an audio version of the book. That's the problem. The fact the Kindle converts the text to speech makes it an audio version.
The reader isn't violating any law. What they're doing with the books that are read through the Kindle is a violation of copyright.
Reading the text aloud alone by a human doesn't violate the audio copyright because it doesn't fit the legal criteria for being an audio recording or public performance. The Kindle reader may indeed fit the audio recording criteria. If not audio recording then perhaps public performance (not likely). If not that, then perhaps "derivative reproduction". All would be a violation.
You seem to be logically analyzing the situation. But logic isn't law. There are particular legal criteria that can be applied to determine whether there is a violation or not. In this case there's a hugely strong case in favour of the Author's Guild.
And what specifically is wrong with a sound performance? Do they own the rights to me reading the book aloud in my own home to my children?
The right to make a public performance of a work is a separate right from the right to reproduce it in material form. So someone could sell the right to make copies of a book, for example, but the right to perform publicly is not included in that right. Performances though are generally not sold-- they're known as moral rights and are to allow the original author to perform his/her own work without violating the very copyright s/he just sold.
What does Amazon have to pay for? They are selling a device that displays books. Sure, it can read them aloud, but that's not a violation of any copyright to have the ability to read aloud. Separately, they sell "books" for that reader. Those books are properly licensed for sale and are sold under those terms. I don't see the "theft." Amazon paid them for the right to sell a text-only version of the book, and that's all that Amazon is selling that is licensed or could be licensed by others as a creative work.
They are absolutely allowed as you say to sell a device which reads books. But what they can't do is (for example) take someone's book that they haven't licensed and then digitize that book and sell the book for use in the reader. They have to buy the reproduction rights to the book first. Same goes for distributing an audio version of the book. You have to buy that right because it is separate from the right to make a digitized text version of the book.
It is a violation of an author's copyright to make or distribute a reproduction, sound recording or other derivative form of the work. Unless you buy the right to the sound recording or have the general copyright that includes all derivations (unusual). So anything that could be considered a reproduction would violate either the general "no derivatives" part of the copyright or could violate the right against making and distributing sound recordings. The AG also claims it could violate the rights against making public performances.
What the AG are saying is that when Amazon purchased the right to make digital text copies of the book for use on the Kindle, they never purchased that separate right to either make public performances, make/distribute audio recordings or (not sure about this one but arguable) make derivative copies of the book.
A digitized voice reading the text aloud could be considered an audio recording, could be argued to be a public performance (a bit weak IMHO but there's an argument there...) and is definitely a derivative of the work. So there's definitely a fertile legal ground for this complaint the AG is making.
If as you say Amazon paid them for the right to sell a text only version of the book, then the fact they're selling a text and audio version of the book is a direct violation of copyright. They have to pay extra to distribute an audio version.
They certainly don't own the rights for you reading the book aloud to your children at home, because:
(1) You're not making a copy (once you speak the words, they're gone, and they're not stored anywhere. An audio recording on the other hand is stored somewhere. Even a software program that generates digital speech on the fly might be argued to be "stored").
(2) You're not making a public performance because your house isn't "in public."
(3) Finally, you're not making any kind of audio recording. The use you're making of the work is private for your own use and study. On the other hand, if you invited all your kids' friends over for their birthday and read aloud to all of them in your back yard, that would probably run afoul of copyright. However no court in the country is going to give a judgment against someone for doing that-- would be ridiculous.
So the AG does have a legitimate legal complaint here. There is a separate market entirely for audio books. That means by appropriating
No, seriously? The AG are complaining that Amazon is selling a right (to the audio version of a book) that in fact they don't own and haven't paid for. The argument is totally valid in copyright law. Amazon is effectively stealing. If they want to sell the audio version of the book (which is a separate legal right) they should pay for it. They haven't. They're selling it. It's stealing. I'd be mad too if were my work they stole and sold.
They're not saying blind people reading books via text to speech software are breaking the law. They're saying that when Amazon sells an audio enabled version of their book without permission then it's a violation of their right. Nothing to do with blind people. Everything to do with publisher stealing.
People in this thread have been awfully quick to jump to the conclusion that the AG are somehow attacking blind people or the right to convert text to audio. People in this thread are missing the point that the AG just want to be paid for their work. Audio is a separate right. Amazon is rich. They should pay for what they sell.
I'm sure authors would be delighted to sell rights to audio version of their work, and happy that blind people read their books. In fact they probably do sell those rights. In this case however obviously Amazon hasn't paid for it.
It's not logic, it's a legal argument based upon a specific legal right, a specific right that comes form copyright. An audio recording and a sound performance are different, specific types of rights that are attached to copyright. Screen readers and accessibility tools may have their own special copyright issues too, but the AG here aren't talking about those tools. They're complaining that Amazon is selling a right they haven't paid for. It's like theft.
Be careful when conflating logic with law. They're (quite frequently) different:)
If you were to do that you'd sue the publisher, not the author. There's no positive obligation on artists to create particular versions of their work. Imagine how ridiculous that would be-- painters, for example.
I don't think there's much action against the publisher either. I don't think you can force someone to publish something that isn't profitable. Not sure about that though. May be different for public agencies versus businesses.
A lot of the comments on here express anger at the Authors' Guild for this story. But guys, the AG are well within their rights to demand that Amazon not sell away things they haven't paid for and don't belong to them.
If you had contracts with publishers for the last 15 years, one of which paid you for the rights to reproduce the digital text version of your work, and a second that paid you for the rights to produce audio versions of your work, wouldn't you be pissed off when the publisher cancelled the second contract and just paid you the same for the first contract but also sold an audio version along with the digital text version?
Damn right you would! Especially when you're only getting some paltry and pathetic sum for your artistic work in the first place. And especially when the law is in your favour. And especially when the person stealing from you is a multi-bazillionaire corporation.
A lot of people complained that this amounts to not being allowed to read aloud to your kids. No, it absolutely isn't about that at all. It's an entirely different legal issue. It's quite unlike good Slashdotters to leap to legal conclusions without even a cursory investigation of the relevant issues... right?
Look at the Copyright legislation. It's quite clear that there are separate copyrights for audio recordings of works. There are very, very good reasons for this.
It's really important to protect the rights of creators, artists and scientists who produce items of value to the society. The simple fact is that IF you don't protect those creations by allowing their creators to profit reasonably from their creation, nobody is going to create anything anymore. Protection of those rights is socially desirable in the furtherance of the arts and sciences. This is a foundational principle of copyright law Slashdotters would do well to understand.
Here's a case where a huge company, Amazon, is trying to sell something they don't have rights to. It's a situation where artists are getting ripped off by an already rich and exploitative entity. It's about a weak group of people trying to enforce their rights. We should support that effort if we expect to continue enjoying the fruits of their labours.
It's also worth remembering that most artists (including writers) are some of the most exploited and poor people in society. Amazon on the other hand... not so much.
In concluding contracts there is often a huge imbalance of bargaining power. This is a good example of that. Amazon as a huge entity can simply bully authors into accepting a price for their work lower than what it's worth. Authors are already paid too little for what their work is worth, and to allow Amazon away with stealing a right it has not paid for is pretty shocking.
We should be rallying for an online self-publishing/self-vending system where authors can offer their works for sale by individual download. For digital versions of books, there is very little that a publisher actually offers in way of services in the Internet age. There's no paper, there's no ink, there's no typesetting costs. So why the hell are we paying so much for digital versions of these books? And why the hell are the authors getting so little of the profit?
As I said in another post, the only entity that wouldn't benefit from such a system would be the big publishers. Authors make more, consumers pay less, and less trees die. What's not to love?
The Authors' Guild is likely concerned about how this Kindle feature will erode their revenues from the audiobook market. That market has been growing over the last 15 years.
If Amazon is allowed to expand to offer what effectively amounts to an audiobook for the same royalty payments to authors as it pays for the text and/or digitization rights, then authors can no longer get any value for the rights to produce audiobooks.
Actually quite clever by Amazon. Very cost-effective. Wish I had shares in the company.
Too bad for authors. But it serves them right. They need to wrest control over publication back from the big publishing houses. There's really no reason why physical publishers should have much business left in this day and age where ebook readers are widely available. There's just no need for paper anymore. And for the prices Amazon STILL charges for a book on Kindle (which costs them absolutely freaking NOTHING to produce because there's no paper etc.) it just isn't worth it.
Imagine if authors could self-publish their books digitally to something like iTunes at $1 per download. And 90% of the revenue actually went to the author... the ONLY person that doesn't benefit from that is the publishing houses.
I looked at buying a book today on Amazon. The print version was $9.99. The Kindle version was $6.99. SERIOUSLY?
Really interesting point. In copyright law this would likely amount to an authorization of copyright violation by Amazon. So Amazon and the ultimate consumer who made the violation would be jointly liable. Given Amazon's deep pockets, they'd be the real target for any action, not the consumer.
AFAIK there are separate copyrights for audio recordings and public performances. I'm not sure if reading text aloud from a digital book would actually qualify as a recording, because of the way the sounds are produced - generated on the fly on a per-word basis (which would likely not qualify for sound recording copyright by itself). In contrast, an audiobook would clearly be a sound recording because the entire thing is pre-recorded, unlike digital read-outs.
Reading to your kids is fair use. Reading out loud to others is fair use so long as there's no public performance (IN public).
It is true that any "reproduction" of a copyright work is a violation of copyright. However, there is a great deal of litigation on what constitutes a "reproduction." AFAIK reproduction requires fixation: the resultant "reproduction" must have some fixed or permanent form. IF, as discussed above, the audio words are generated on the fly and are not pre-recorded, the read out would probably not constitute as "fixed" and therefore not a reproduction.
Just some hypotheses from my basic copyright law knowledge.
This is not the case. Universities are not necessarily government institutions. There is a very special role of intellectual property in universities that is generally very carefully respected in the interests of the furtherance of science and literature (a value enshrined in your constitution).
Anything that originates from an author, including a professor, is copyrighted and owned by that person. There are exceptions for when a worker creates materials under a contract (like a journalist, or tech manual writer for a company), but generally professors are exempt from this and own the copyright of what they create.
If the professor created the lecture, s/he owns that lecture outline. You as a student however can make your own notes on her lecture and generally you will own the copyright on your own notes UNLESS you copy her words down verbatim AND she has speaking notes from whence she makes her lecture. If she has no notes and is merely off-the-cuffing, you STILL own the copyright even if you copy down those words verbatim. The distinction lies in whether or not the professor has fixed her work in the form of notes, such that your copying down what she says could be argued to be derivative of her fixed notes. That would be violation of HER copyright. However without those notes, her work is not fixed and therefore not subject to copyright.
The school does not, unless a special agreement has been signed, which is generally not the case for education institutions, by the professor. The work is not likely to be public property nor is it in the public domain. Otherwise, every piece of research by professors would be public domain and therefore immediately usable without permission by anyone including for profit. Obviously, this could never be allowed.
A work is copyright if it is original (in the sense of originating from the author-- doesn't need to be novel or non-obvious)and is the proper subject matter of copyright law. Previous case law establishes that authors of stuff like exams, or persons who copy down (even verbatim) speeches or interviews of celebrities) are owners of the copyright of their work (unless employed by someone while doing so). So you own the copyright of your notes.
The teacher can ask you to destroy the notes, but s/he cannot confiscate anything belonging to you, nor use your notes in any way without your permission. If s/he destroys them or takes them, it is theft/conversion and you can sue or press criminal charges.
Simple. Class action lawsuit against CTRC. Creates incentive for latter institution to design a system that cannot be foreseeably stolen by any old worker in the organization. Make them liable for the tort actions of their employees (standard Canadian law), and impose huge damages. Then watch how CTRC takes measures to avoid this in the future. If they don't, sue them again for negligence (as soon as the first old granny gets scammed or loses money through the actions of one of the list purchasers).
1) Go see a good lawyer.
2) After having consulted with the lawyer, "return" the software. Delete it or similar.......
Agreed but skip step 1. You'll pay more for the consultation than you would if you just coughed up 98 Euros. Just wait for them to sue you-- they won't.
She only has to pay if it was a valid contract. A basic test for a valid contract, at least in Canadian law, is whether an objective person, viewing the circumstance, would have concluded both parties intended to be bound by the agreement.
Given the internet and open source context, there are thousands of arguments fairly made to assert that your friend didn't see this as a contract nor did she intend to be bound by it. Not least of these is the fact that OpenOffice is well-known to be free, and the fact that it was not free in this instance should have been brought to the attention of the consumer.
If there's no personal information linking to a money source or national indicator (social insurance, credit card or bank account type stuff) I wouldn't pay a single cent to these guys. Let them make the decision to SUE ME for their 98 Euros. 99.999999% chance they will forget about it.
Slashdot Mirror
In all seriousness though, being fat is far more effective reproductively than being skinny. At least before the modern times. Possibly this is why so many early human cultures had a proliferation of those Wilendorf Venus figurines - of hugely fat women.
Not only is being fat a physical marker of a successful organism (i.e. one that is more than able to provide for itself - regardless of whether the calories came from its own hunting/gathering or were gifts from males/others), it also marks that one has the means/ability to provide for many children. This makes it more likely children from this mother will survive-- not starve to death. If you were looking for a mate with whom your offspring were most likely to survive, suddenly it seems logical you'd choose a fattie.
Fat = successful organism.
"Among other things that being unarmed causes, it causes you to be despised." - Machiavelli, The Prince
Man, you should see some of the contracts that insurance companies make you sign. It's not dumb to sign a contract of insurance in good faith having read the terms which seem entirely reasonable. Then after 20 years of premiums, it comes time for the insurance company to pay up, and they invoke some technicality against you that you know is patently false and/or is a totally ridiculous interpretation of either the contract or what actually happened. Then you get screwed. Then you can't file a lawsuit because your house has burned down, and you have no money.
If you knew how often this scenario happens, you'd never sign another insurance contract.
Just to show how glib statements like the one you made above are kind of silly. You can't over-generalize a situation you have little expertise in and then call the whole thing dumb. That's dumb.
Things that seem "obviously flawed" in hindsight often weren't so at the time they happened. Processes that seem totally reasonable at first glance can, in strange or unexpected or unusual circumstances, become patently UNreasonable.
Hence, the practice of law (and politics).
It's not subverting the democratic process. People didn't show up to vote. That's part of the democratic process: being dependent on the dedication level of your representative. Oops.
Paying someone to show up and represent you may seem like a good idea until they don't bother showing up. Then you have a problem.
Subverting the democratic process would be ignoring quorum rules, or having a minority and favour but passing legislation regardless, or using un-constitutionally mandated powers of veto, or letting one person's vote (i.e. a President's) outweigh the majority votes of others present.
This isn't a sneaky trick (in fact it's nothing new-- US politics has a history of moments like this one too). It is merely taking advantage of the fact that certain individuals (who obviously didn't care enough about the legislation to read the agenda or make sure they were present) did not show up to work one evening to pass legislation they might have cared about - but who knows, since they didn't show up.
It's important to ensure blame goes where it is deserved. This isn't the democratic process at fault here: it's people not showing up for work. If it's stupid to have late night legislation passing meetings, then deal with that. The democratic process has lots of change mechanisms-- that's its strength. Democracy is only meaningful if people participate, so if people don't participate, don't blame democracy.
Her Majesty. Not Royal Highness. The latter is a title reserved for those in direct male line to the throne, not the incumbent. Prince William is Royal Highness. Charles is Royal Highness. The Queen is Majesty.
Anyone else grossed out by the thought that someone else's DNA (god knows how it got there-- I shudder to think) is on your cotton swabs?? I know where *I* put those swabs... I certainly don't want someone else's DNA to go where I put those swabs...
GROSS!!!
Indeed-- really makes you view the Net Neutrality debate with a new eye, too!
I can just imagine what would happen to games like Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto etc. when you yank them out of the hands of consumers directly and put them effectively in the domain of ISPs / NIMBYs who decide your source should be throttled ... think of the children!!
I thought that our not being able to measure something has, in fact, created a scientific revolution this last century. But hey, that's just me.
Just an example of how not being able to measure something in fact increased our understanding. A lot.
Fair use is a pretty limited defence for copyright infringement. There may be case law that defines the scope of the defence. I can't comment on US law but in Canada for example factors are whether the use is for private study and research, and how much of the work you've taken. In addition the fact that you've re-published the work on a public website is likely really important. You may have the right to "fair use" but you certainly don't have the right to republish to the entire world, unless you've got a really, really good reason.
The takedown notice indicates the owner is interested in protecting its property, which means you might indeed be sued. So, I'd take it seriously. As Slashdot knows, the courts have been pretty sympathetic to owners of intellectual property lately. Do you really want to be on the pointy end of the sword? Is this the hill you want to die on?
See a lawyer. Or, take it down. You said you used 75 or so questions out of 550 ish? Sounds like more than 10% which is sometimes used as a threshhold for fair use (again, at least in Canada).
An African or a European swallow??
See? A computer wouldn't have known to ask that question!!
Right, and if you don't want to pay Caterpillar for their advanced tractor technology to harvest your field in a day, you can always spend 2 weeks and pay 18 other people to do it by hand.
People should pay for the use of technology which betters their lives. If you don't want to pay, do it your own way. Otherwise, if you don't reward people for inventing useful things, they just won't invent them.
Every book purchased has been licensed for digital text distribution. It has NOT been licensed for audio format distribution.
They are selling an audio version of the book. That's the problem. The fact the Kindle converts the text to speech makes it an audio version.
The reader isn't violating any law. What they're doing with the books that are read through the Kindle is a violation of copyright.
Reading the text aloud alone by a human doesn't violate the audio copyright because it doesn't fit the legal criteria for being an audio recording or public performance. The Kindle reader may indeed fit the audio recording criteria. If not audio recording then perhaps public performance (not likely). If not that, then perhaps "derivative reproduction". All would be a violation.
You seem to be logically analyzing the situation. But logic isn't law. There are particular legal criteria that can be applied to determine whether there is a violation or not. In this case there's a hugely strong case in favour of the Author's Guild.
And what specifically is wrong with a sound performance? Do they own the rights to me reading the book aloud in my own home to my children?
The right to make a public performance of a work is a separate right from the right to reproduce it in material form. So someone could sell the right to make copies of a book, for example, but the right to perform publicly is not included in that right. Performances though are generally not sold-- they're known as moral rights and are to allow the original author to perform his/her own work without violating the very copyright s/he just sold.
What does Amazon have to pay for? They are selling a device that displays books. Sure, it can read them aloud, but that's not a violation of any copyright to have the ability to read aloud. Separately, they sell "books" for that reader. Those books are properly licensed for sale and are sold under those terms. I don't see the "theft." Amazon paid them for the right to sell a text-only version of the book, and that's all that Amazon is selling that is licensed or could be licensed by others as a creative work.
They are absolutely allowed as you say to sell a device which reads books. But what they can't do is (for example) take someone's book that they haven't licensed and then digitize that book and sell the book for use in the reader. They have to buy the reproduction rights to the book first. Same goes for distributing an audio version of the book. You have to buy that right because it is separate from the right to make a digitized text version of the book.
It is a violation of an author's copyright to make or distribute a reproduction, sound recording or other derivative form of the work. Unless you buy the right to the sound recording or have the general copyright that includes all derivations (unusual). So anything that could be considered a reproduction would violate either the general "no derivatives" part of the copyright or could violate the right against making and distributing sound recordings. The AG also claims it could violate the rights against making public performances.
What the AG are saying is that when Amazon purchased the right to make digital text copies of the book for use on the Kindle, they never purchased that separate right to either make public performances, make/distribute audio recordings or (not sure about this one but arguable) make derivative copies of the book.
A digitized voice reading the text aloud could be considered an audio recording, could be argued to be a public performance (a bit weak IMHO but there's an argument there...) and is definitely a derivative of the work. So there's definitely a fertile legal ground for this complaint the AG is making.
If as you say Amazon paid them for the right to sell a text only version of the book, then the fact they're selling a text and audio version of the book is a direct violation of copyright. They have to pay extra to distribute an audio version.
They certainly don't own the rights for you reading the book aloud to your children at home, because:
(1) You're not making a copy (once you speak the words, they're gone, and they're not stored anywhere. An audio recording on the other hand is stored somewhere. Even a software program that generates digital speech on the fly might be argued to be "stored").
(2) You're not making a public performance because your house isn't "in public."
(3) Finally, you're not making any kind of audio recording. The use you're making of the work is private for your own use and study. On the other hand, if you invited all your kids' friends over for their birthday and read aloud to all of them in your back yard, that would probably run afoul of copyright. However no court in the country is going to give a judgment against someone for doing that-- would be ridiculous.
So the AG does have a legitimate legal complaint here. There is a separate market entirely for audio books. That means by appropriating
No, seriously? The AG are complaining that Amazon is selling a right (to the audio version of a book) that in fact they don't own and haven't paid for. The argument is totally valid in copyright law. Amazon is effectively stealing. If they want to sell the audio version of the book (which is a separate legal right) they should pay for it. They haven't. They're selling it. It's stealing. I'd be mad too if were my work they stole and sold.
They're not saying blind people reading books via text to speech software are breaking the law. They're saying that when Amazon sells an audio enabled version of their book without permission then it's a violation of their right. Nothing to do with blind people. Everything to do with publisher stealing.
People in this thread have been awfully quick to jump to the conclusion that the AG are somehow attacking blind people or the right to convert text to audio. People in this thread are missing the point that the AG just want to be paid for their work. Audio is a separate right. Amazon is rich. They should pay for what they sell.
I'm sure authors would be delighted to sell rights to audio version of their work, and happy that blind people read their books. In fact they probably do sell those rights. In this case however obviously Amazon hasn't paid for it.
It's not logic, it's a legal argument based upon a specific legal right, a specific right that comes form copyright. An audio recording and a sound performance are different, specific types of rights that are attached to copyright. Screen readers and accessibility tools may have their own special copyright issues too, but the AG here aren't talking about those tools. They're complaining that Amazon is selling a right they haven't paid for. It's like theft.
Be careful when conflating logic with law. They're (quite frequently) different :)
If you were to do that you'd sue the publisher, not the author. There's no positive obligation on artists to create particular versions of their work. Imagine how ridiculous that would be-- painters, for example.
I don't think there's much action against the publisher either. I don't think you can force someone to publish something that isn't profitable. Not sure about that though. May be different for public agencies versus businesses.
Likely fair use. You can make a copy (or reproduction in this case) for individual/private study.
A lot of the comments on here express anger at the Authors' Guild for this story. But guys, the AG are well within their rights to demand that Amazon not sell away things they haven't paid for and don't belong to them.
If you had contracts with publishers for the last 15 years, one of which paid you for the rights to reproduce the digital text version of your work, and a second that paid you for the rights to produce audio versions of your work, wouldn't you be pissed off when the publisher cancelled the second contract and just paid you the same for the first contract but also sold an audio version along with the digital text version?
Damn right you would! Especially when you're only getting some paltry and pathetic sum for your artistic work in the first place. And especially when the law is in your favour. And especially when the person stealing from you is a multi-bazillionaire corporation.
A lot of people complained that this amounts to not being allowed to read aloud to your kids. No, it absolutely isn't about that at all. It's an entirely different legal issue. It's quite unlike good Slashdotters to leap to legal conclusions without even a cursory investigation of the relevant issues... right?
Look at the Copyright legislation. It's quite clear that there are separate copyrights for audio recordings of works. There are very, very good reasons for this.
It's really important to protect the rights of creators, artists and scientists who produce items of value to the society. The simple fact is that IF you don't protect those creations by allowing their creators to profit reasonably from their creation, nobody is going to create anything anymore. Protection of those rights is socially desirable in the furtherance of the arts and sciences. This is a foundational principle of copyright law Slashdotters would do well to understand.
Here's a case where a huge company, Amazon, is trying to sell something they don't have rights to. It's a situation where artists are getting ripped off by an already rich and exploitative entity. It's about a weak group of people trying to enforce their rights. We should support that effort if we expect to continue enjoying the fruits of their labours.
It's also worth remembering that most artists (including writers) are some of the most exploited and poor people in society. Amazon on the other hand... not so much.
In concluding contracts there is often a huge imbalance of bargaining power. This is a good example of that. Amazon as a huge entity can simply bully authors into accepting a price for their work lower than what it's worth. Authors are already paid too little for what their work is worth, and to allow Amazon away with stealing a right it has not paid for is pretty shocking.
We should be rallying for an online self-publishing/self-vending system where authors can offer their works for sale by individual download. For digital versions of books, there is very little that a publisher actually offers in way of services in the Internet age. There's no paper, there's no ink, there's no typesetting costs. So why the hell are we paying so much for digital versions of these books? And why the hell are the authors getting so little of the profit?
As I said in another post, the only entity that wouldn't benefit from such a system would be the big publishers. Authors make more, consumers pay less, and less trees die. What's not to love?
Say no to stealing -- when it's Amazon doing it.
The Authors' Guild is likely concerned about how this Kindle feature will erode their revenues from the audiobook market. That market has been growing over the last 15 years.
If Amazon is allowed to expand to offer what effectively amounts to an audiobook for the same royalty payments to authors as it pays for the text and/or digitization rights, then authors can no longer get any value for the rights to produce audiobooks.
Actually quite clever by Amazon. Very cost-effective. Wish I had shares in the company.
Too bad for authors. But it serves them right. They need to wrest control over publication back from the big publishing houses. There's really no reason why physical publishers should have much business left in this day and age where ebook readers are widely available. There's just no need for paper anymore. And for the prices Amazon STILL charges for a book on Kindle (which costs them absolutely freaking NOTHING to produce because there's no paper etc.) it just isn't worth it.
Imagine if authors could self-publish their books digitally to something like iTunes at $1 per download. And 90% of the revenue actually went to the author... the ONLY person that doesn't benefit from that is the publishing houses.
I looked at buying a book today on Amazon. The print version was $9.99. The Kindle version was $6.99. SERIOUSLY?
Really interesting point. In copyright law this would likely amount to an authorization of copyright violation by Amazon. So Amazon and the ultimate consumer who made the violation would be jointly liable. Given Amazon's deep pockets, they'd be the real target for any action, not the consumer.
AFAIK there are separate copyrights for audio recordings and public performances. I'm not sure if reading text aloud from a digital book would actually qualify as a recording, because of the way the sounds are produced - generated on the fly on a per-word basis (which would likely not qualify for sound recording copyright by itself). In contrast, an audiobook would clearly be a sound recording because the entire thing is pre-recorded, unlike digital read-outs.
Reading to your kids is fair use. Reading out loud to others is fair use so long as there's no public performance (IN public).
It is true that any "reproduction" of a copyright work is a violation of copyright. However, there is a great deal of litigation on what constitutes a "reproduction." AFAIK reproduction requires fixation: the resultant "reproduction" must have some fixed or permanent form. IF, as discussed above, the audio words are generated on the fly and are not pre-recorded, the read out would probably not constitute as "fixed" and therefore not a reproduction.
Just some hypotheses from my basic copyright law knowledge.
This is not the case. Universities are not necessarily government institutions. There is a very special role of intellectual property in universities that is generally very carefully respected in the interests of the furtherance of science and literature (a value enshrined in your constitution).
Anything that originates from an author, including a professor, is copyrighted and owned by that person. There are exceptions for when a worker creates materials under a contract (like a journalist, or tech manual writer for a company), but generally professors are exempt from this and own the copyright of what they create.
If the professor created the lecture, s/he owns that lecture outline. You as a student however can make your own notes on her lecture and generally you will own the copyright on your own notes UNLESS you copy her words down verbatim AND she has speaking notes from whence she makes her lecture. If she has no notes and is merely off-the-cuffing, you STILL own the copyright even if you copy down those words verbatim. The distinction lies in whether or not the professor has fixed her work in the form of notes, such that your copying down what she says could be argued to be derivative of her fixed notes. That would be violation of HER copyright. However without those notes, her work is not fixed and therefore not subject to copyright.
The school does not, unless a special agreement has been signed, which is generally not the case for education institutions, by the professor. The work is not likely to be public property nor is it in the public domain. Otherwise, every piece of research by professors would be public domain and therefore immediately usable without permission by anyone including for profit. Obviously, this could never be allowed.
A work is copyright if it is original (in the sense of originating from the author-- doesn't need to be novel or non-obvious)and is the proper subject matter of copyright law. Previous case law establishes that authors of stuff like exams, or persons who copy down (even verbatim) speeches or interviews of celebrities) are owners of the copyright of their work (unless employed by someone while doing so). So you own the copyright of your notes.
The teacher can ask you to destroy the notes, but s/he cannot confiscate anything belonging to you, nor use your notes in any way without your permission. If s/he destroys them or takes them, it is theft/conversion and you can sue or press criminal charges.
Simple. Class action lawsuit against CTRC. Creates incentive for latter institution to design a system that cannot be foreseeably stolen by any old worker in the organization. Make them liable for the tort actions of their employees (standard Canadian law), and impose huge damages. Then watch how CTRC takes measures to avoid this in the future. If they don't, sue them again for negligence (as soon as the first old granny gets scammed or loses money through the actions of one of the list purchasers).
1) Go see a good lawyer. 2) After having consulted with the lawyer, "return" the software. Delete it or similar... ....
Agreed but skip step 1. You'll pay more for the consultation than you would if you just coughed up 98 Euros. Just wait for them to sue you-- they won't.
She only has to pay if it was a valid contract. A basic test for a valid contract, at least in Canadian law, is whether an objective person, viewing the circumstance, would have concluded both parties intended to be bound by the agreement.
Given the internet and open source context, there are thousands of arguments fairly made to assert that your friend didn't see this as a contract nor did she intend to be bound by it. Not least of these is the fact that OpenOffice is well-known to be free, and the fact that it was not free in this instance should have been brought to the attention of the consumer.
If there's no personal information linking to a money source or national indicator (social insurance, credit card or bank account type stuff) I wouldn't pay a single cent to these guys. Let them make the decision to SUE ME for their 98 Euros. 99.999999% chance they will forget about it.