[A2k] Re: [Aebc] Another 'misguided' author makes his 'ridiculous'opinionknown, re: Kindle TTS. Alert the Coalition!

[Claude Almansi]

Hi Paul and All

Between your lines, Paul

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's one thing if text to speech provides access to the truly
> disabled, (personally, as an author I'd stipulate to that if the scope
> were restricted to those certifying a need for the audio capability)

The problem is that  such a certification requirement
-  leaves out a huge amount of people who have real need but no
certificate: for instance people who have fallen and broken both
wrists, sick people too weak to hold even a Kindle in bed, people who
have become permanently disabled but whose files haven't yet been
processed by disability certification authorities, etc., etc.: go and
see the comments by people who signed the petition.
- would be a useless, unenforceable,  umpteenth bureaucratic
obligation imposed upon people with disabilities: what about lending
their Kindle to their spouse or kids? Should the Kindle have a Rfid
chip identifying users by their fingerprints?

> but Kindle and other technologies go well beyond that. =C2=A0This increas=
e
> in scope presents major additional issues, as any author or attorney
> that has gone through negotiations to translate a book into audio
> format can attest. =C2=A0Even when done professionally by a narrator, man=
y
> issues of emphasis, accent, pacing, rhythm and many other issues arise
> that, in fact, change the work in ways ranging from subtle to
> potentially serious.

Very true about translating a book into an audio book, or into a radio
play performance, because then you produce  a derivative object. Not
true about text-to-speech which does not create a derivative anymore
than using - to borrow again Ross Eadie's comparison - a magnifying
lense or than magnifying founts - to quote Manon Ress again .

>
> Unfortunately Kindle (as with most computerized applications) involves
> the mere licensing of content rather than the actual ownership of it,
> as with a physical book. =C2=A0Licensing transfers many fewer rights for
> the same price, or a little less, and raises serious issues when
> applied, as it is, well beyond the scope of the blind or disabled (not
> to mention totally failing to serve the deaf and blind community). For
> a discussion of this recently in the Christian Science Monitor please
> see "Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought, By Emily
> Walshe, at http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0318/p09s01-coop.html

Thanks for the reference: great, spot-on article on the menaces
inherent in the Kindle's DRM. And if Amazon can withdraw the
text-to-speech capability from already acquired e-books - sorry, from
the e-books for which you already have paid the license -  at the
author's demand, who knows what else they can do to them through their
DRM program.

But the Reading Rights Coalition's petition is not a defence of
Amazon's gimmicky, perversely customer-grabbing Kindle operation. It
is about avoiding that this operation, the knee-jerk reaction it
caused in the Authors' Guild and Amazon's caving in to the Authors'
Guild for mere commercial reasons, should give credibility to the
preposterous idea that text-to-speech creates a derivative object
subject to separate rights.

>
> That being said, though I personally would waive any of the concern
> below as to the blind or others with a bona fide text to speech need
> or rquirement, Kindle as I understand it is a synthesized voice, and
> access is by no means is restricted to the scope of the disabled or
> those needing this capability, and so legitimate issues are raised
> outside the disability community's use of this technology for me (and
> perhaps inside that scope, for other authors besides me).

My answer about certification above also obtains for "bona fide text
to speech need or requirement"

>Here's one
> such example:
>
> I've not only experience "publishing" the written word but also
> "publishing" so to speak the spoken word -- in the form of both
> speeches and deposition transcripts. A deposition is first a
> speech-to-text function and then when "published" or used in court it
> is again a text-to-speech function.
>
> In both depositions and speeches, I've become very aware on various
> levels that the spoken language is substantially different relative to
> the written language -- they might be thought of as sub-languages. =C2=A0=
To
> illustrate, it can be awkward or uncomfortable to read transcripts of
> speeches or depositions even though they are fully understood and
> natural when delivered verbally in person. =C2=A0One also learns to take
> depositions with a consciousness of how the spoken word will read in
> deposition transcript form, and further how it will sound if read
> aloud in court at trial. =C2=A0These considerations affect both word choi=
ce
> and expression, and certainly meaning in many cases as well.
>
> Because of the subtle, and sometimes major, differences in the spoken
> and written language, an author (or a speaker) may quite legitimately
> object to the direct transfer of text to speech or speech to text
> because it can, and does, interfere with the expression the author or
> speaker has typically worked so hard on that it has become his or her
> "baby."

This spoken-vs-written language when you do a transcript and when you
read it again is a very real issue, but it doesn't apply to
text-to-speech. When you do a transcript, you have a new object. You
don't with text-to-speech, which is just a mode of access.

Objecting to users accessing content through text-to-speech because it
deforms is like objecting to them accessing content through
computerized translation. As long as using these access modes is the
individual user's initiative, the deformation problem is his/hers, not
the author's.

>
> Speaking of "babies," it's common experience for most lesser known
> authors not blessed by major commercial fanfare upon publication to
> "deliver" their babies as it were, and have that birthing process not
> even be noticed by family members, for example. =C2=A0But then to add
> insult (potentially) to injury, to have that problem compounded by a
> change in the format of the work that makes it come off in a way that
> loses some of its quality because of a text to speech conversion is to
> take one's "baby" and then perform a form of surgical alteration upon
> it. =C2=A0Somebody who really cares about their "art" will have definite
> concerns about such conversions.
>
> Basically, I think the author's perspective is that they wish to
> retain the right to consent, or not consent, to the practice of
> surgery upon their creative expressions. =C2=A0They already have a
> difficult enough love/hate relationship with their editors, but to
> subject the text even further to the text to speech process, with its
> necessary imperfections discussed above along with its present bugs
> and glitches, is to rub salt in the surgical wounds authors of
> authors' "babies."

Oh dear. Are there really "authors" so jejune as to ignore that once
they publish a work, the umbilical cord is severed, and that
copyright law allows people to make whatever  use they want of other
people's works, so long this use remains personal, individual?  I
could  sing Mr Hamit's novel under the shower to the tune of de
Souza's March without breaking any law.

If Mr Hamit and other frustrated authors like the ones you describe
want to protect their "babies", then they should keep them for
themselves, instead of publishing them.


>
> I think there's a middle ground that will allow access for the ones
> that need it without offending author's creative control. =C2=A0Keep in
> mind that many authors lack the bargaining power with publisher's to
> prevent electronic rights transfers, so this presents an additional
> dimension of complexity.

Again: an author's creative control does not extend to personal uses
made of their works. Sure, were I to record and distribute  my
above-mentioned under-the-shower rendition of Mr Hamit's novel, he
could probably sue my shirt off (1), because the recording would be a
real derivative. But again: he'd be hard put to sue me  for just
singing it under the  shower.
>
> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>
> PS =C2=A0Hopefully a boycott of my works won't result (smile) from this
> post since I write primarily in the areas of law and legal
> encyclopedias that have a limited audience. =C2=A0I think it's important =
to
> keep in mind that nearly all the issues presented here, at least for
> me, are not at all because of, or targeted toward the disabled
> community, especially the blind. =C2=A0I just spoke to a very good blind
> friend who's an activist in areas of access and she understands my
> points here fully without rancor and can even expand upon them based
> on her experience with digitized voice. =C2=A0 =C2=A0Whether or not one a=
grees
> with the ideas set forth in the Christian Science Monitor link above,
> the real issues are the unintentional "Trojan Horse" issues that come
> along with expanding text to speech well beyond the areas where it is
> truly needed. =C2=A0In that sense, it's quite unfortunate that authors ar=
e
> in any way pitted against the blind and disabled community. =C2=A0If it
> were only so simple, there would be little problem.

Don't worry: I'd love to read your works, and controversy is a big
help in clarifying concepts.

Just one last thing: in her Christian Science Monitor article, Emily
Walshe does not object to the text-to-speech feature of the Kindle.
She objects to its DRM protection that restricts users' liberties
beyond the restrictions of copyright law.

It is the same objection raised by Cory Doctorow in "Authors have lost
the plot in Kindle battle" (the Guardian, March 31
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/31/cory-doctorow-kindle>):

"... But while we were all running our mouths about the plausibility
of the singularity emerging from Amazon's text-to-speech R&D, a much
juicier issue was escaping our notice: it is technically possible for
Amazon to switch off the text-to-speech feature for some or all books.

That's a hell of a thing, isn't it? Now that Amazon has agreed with
the Authors Guild that text-to-speech will only be switched on for
authors who sign a contract permitting it, we should all be goggling
in amazement at the idea that this can be accomplished.

After all, the Kindle customers who've already received their units,
bought devices that were advertised as "capable of reading Kindle
books aloud", not "reading some Kindle books aloud". The only ways
that Amazon could accomplish this is:

1. If they had anticipated this outcome and secretly enabled this
feature before shipping the Kindles =E2=80=93 effectively engaging in false
advertising, or;

2. If they can force you to downgrade your Kindle to remove the
feature (possibly by ending your ongoing access to the Kindle store,
or even by terminating your access to your existing Kindle books).

Neither of these should inspire confidence in the Kindle as a
long-term device. Dropping $359 (=C2=A3251) on a device whose features are
subject to the outcomes of ongoing negotiations to which you are not a
party is, frankly, nuts.

Would you buy a car if it was known that your air-conditioner and
stereo system could be remotely disabled? Or if we suddenly discovered
that the manufacturer could remotely lock you out of your boot in
order to assuage some pressure group who'd rather you no longer be
allowed to carry parcels around? It's one thing for next year's model
to ship without the fantastic stereo system but it's another thing
entirely for the manufacturer to rip it out of your dashboard after
you've bought it.

If I were running the Authors Guild, this would be my number one
issue: we can't afford to allow our books to be used to lure readers
into purchasing devices that can turn against them. Because whatever
bad feelings arise from this, some of them will surely be visited upon
us. ..."

I.e. both Emily Walshe and Cory Doctorow give good arguments for
refusing to publish books on the Kindle - but not for playing the
Kindle's restrictive DRM game, and on top of the bargain, then
depriving a posteriori people who have already paid for the device and
the e-books for it of one of the few rights they thought they had when
they misguidedly coughed up for the stuff.