Authors Guild Silent Over iBooks Text-To-Speech 187
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.
Does Apple sell books? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the difference is that Amazon is seen as more of a threat than Apple?
Not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely asking.
The Authors Guild has learned a lesson? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like Apple got em on the payroll (Score:0, Interesting)
Shut down competitors, give Apple a free pass.
After all, iTunes is now the only way to listen to music legally, it only follows iBooks should be the only way to listen to books legally.
I am not speaking to reality, however, as far as the average consumer knows, this is the truth.
These content cartels are always at war (in the press) against distribution services X, Y and Z -- and always praising the be all and end all genius of apple. End result? The consumer, terrified of being labelled a 'warez criminal', and being raided by the FBI, supports only Apple.
The authors guild had no case against Kindle, and they would have none against Apple. They can and do, however, stir up the appropriate hornets nests necessary to cast one in a bad light.
Who knew? (Score:2, Interesting)
Who knew pissing off disabled folks (like me) wasn't a good idea to drive up business? All they accomplished with their little tantrum was to ensure that any books I buy in the future will be from the used market, to avoid supporting them.
We do seriously live in a society where (if everything could be magically made accessible tomorrow for free), some predatory capitalist goons would still try and charge us disabled folks $1500 for equal access... all the wile claiming to support the rights of disabled folks.
Re:What's the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The Authors Guild has learned a lesson? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:so apple does not like blind people? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [twitter.com]
http://www.youtube.com/liamerven [youtube.com]
The guild doesn't care because it sucks so bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The guild doesn't care because it sucks so bad (Score:3, Interesting)