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

Tue Apr 14 06:57:00 2009

Paul are you now going to mess with my computer with a $1,000.00 piece of
software I paid for to read books and other computerized things?  A Kindle
book is no different than a computer with voice synthesis.  Text to speech
on the Kindle merely focuses on a part of the book and reads it aloud.  We
are not talking about recording the book as it is read by text to speech and
creating a full .mp3 of the book.  And even at that, a purchaser has a right
to have a usable copy for personal use whether blind or not.  The text to
speech on the Kindle is a speech engine and not part of the book which
resides in electronic form.  I don't care if you think I am disabled enough
to use text to speech or not.  Frankly, it is none of your business accept
to sell me a usable copy like anyone else does who can read a print version.
You have a right and so do I!  I have a responsibility  not to steal your
copyrighted work, and you have a responsibility to do your best to sell me a
usable copy.  You do not have a right to decide anything about my
disability.  Go after someone for using a magnifier, and see how many people
support any kind of concept that an author or copyright holder can determine
what a person can or cannot do to read a book they paid for, took out of a
library, or used at a school.

Unbelievable.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:49 AM
To: beryl williams
Cc: readie@mts.net; Robert Martinengo; AEBC sponsered mailing list;
a2k@lists.essential.org; ACCESSINFO
Subject: Re: [A2k] Re: [Aebc] Another 'misguided' author makes his
'ridiculous'opinionknown, re: Kindle TTS. Alert the Coalition!

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) but Kindle and other
technologies go well beyond that.  This increase 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.  Even when
done professionally by a narrator, many 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.

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.  Licensing 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

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).  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.  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.  One 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.  These
considerations affect both word choice 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."

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.  But 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.  Somebody 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.  They 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."

I think there's a middle ground that will allow access for the ones that
need it without offending author's creative control.  Keep 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.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

PS  Hopefully 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.  I 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.  I 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.    Whether or not one agrees
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.  In
that sense, it's quite unfortunate that authors are in any way pitted
against the blind and disabled community.  If it were only so simple, there
would be little problem.

Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought By Emily Walshe The
Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0318/p09s01-coop.html

On 4/9/09, beryl williams <beryl.williams@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who is Francis Hamit and what does he write?  Personally, I have never
> come across his name or work, and his attitude toward  equal text to
> speech access, is no skin off  my nose.  There are so many excellent
> authors, whose work I can, and hope to  enjoy,without too much concern
> about Mr. Hamit's "dog in the manger" attitude. However, I believe
> adamently that authors and publishers must recognise the legitimacy of
> alternate format access to conventional print publication.  There is
> no excuse for denying access  , provided the author/Copyright holder
> receives equal recompense, regardless of how the work is ultimately
> accessed,  now the technology is already being widely  applied in other
communication disciplines.
> Has anyone personal experience with the Open Library at:
> openlibrary.org  It appears to be another resource for Etext material,
> though I am uncertain as to how accessible it is for screen reading
software or downloading.
> Regards,
>
> beryl.Original Message -----
> From: "Ross Eadie" <eeadie@mts.net>
> To: "'Robert Martinengo'" <accessible.text@gmail.com>; "'AEBC
> sponsered mailing list'" <aebc@blindcanadians.ca>;
> <a2k@lists.essential.org>; "'ACCESSINFO'"
> <ACCESSINFO-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 6:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Aebc] Another 'misguided' author makes his
> 'ridiculous'opinionknown, re: Kindle TTS. Alert the Coalition!
>
>
>>
>> The following was my reply to this same message posted to the
>> National Library list server:
>>
>>
>> Francis Hamit will need to get a good lawyer when the text to speech
>> version of the work is produced.  Text to speech licensing does not
>> allow commercial benefits with its voice synthesis from what  I know.
>> The author will have to pay for the right I believe.  The author can
>> take me to court for using text to speech on the book.  While the
>> author is at it, the author can take all the people who use a
>> magnifying glass to read the book in print.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: aebc-bounces@blindcanadians.ca
>> [mailto:aebc-bounces@blindcanadians.ca]
>> On Behalf Of Robert Martinengo
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:57 AM
>> To: AEBC sponsered mailing list; a2k@lists.essential.org; ACCESSINFO
>> Subject: [Aebc] Another 'misguided' author makes his 'ridiculous'
>> opinionknown, re: Kindle TTS. Alert the Coalition!
>>
>> http://brasscannonbooks.net/press.htm
>>
>> Keeping Kindle 2 quiet
>>
>> Re: "Tell me an e-story," editorial, March 4
>>
>> The Times' editorial misses the point of the dispute about the
>> text-to-speech function on the Kindle 2. Authors and other creators
>> have the right to copy, distribute, perform, display and create
>> derivative works -- including text-to-speech e-books -- from the
>> original content they create.
>> With very limited exceptions, these rights can be transferred only by
>> written contract.
>>
>> It is the author who decides whether the text-to-speech function on
>> the Kindle 2 can be applied to his or her work. Not Amazon.com, not
>> the customer, and certainly not all of those people who find the law
>> inconvenient or tiresome.
>>
>> The current awkwardness of the technology is irrelevant. Better voice
>> systems are already present on phone systems. It is only a matter of
>> time before they become part of text-to-speech applications on e-books.
>>
>> My novel, "The Shenandoah Spy," is available on Kindle, but I have
>> not authorized text-to-speech distribution, nor will I any time soon.
>> I have been publishing e-books since 2004, but I do not think of it
>> as more than a minor niche market. That may change in the future, and
>> I might be inspired to bundle audio rights with e-book rights if the
>> sales justify it. But that is my choice, not yours.
>>
>> Francis Hamit
>> Frazier Park
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the list, send an email to:
>>
>> aebc-unsubscribe@blindcanadians.ca
>>
>> Leave the body and subject fields blank.  You will receive a message
>> back asking you to confirm this action.  Simply reply to the message
>> leaving the body and subject of the message in tact.
>>
>>
>> This mailing list is sponsored by The Alliance for Equality of Blind
>> Canadians For More Information Please call 1 800 561 4774 Or visit
>> our web site at www.BlindCanadians.ca
>>
>> Disclaimer Neither the AEBC or this list moderator will be held
>> responsible for material posted on this list. ''If you say it, then
>> you are responsible for it.''
>> Messages are posted as they were intended by the author!
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the list, send an email to:
>>
>> aebc-unsubscribe@blindcanadians.ca
>>
>> Leave the body and subject fields blank.  You will receive a message
>> back asking you to confirm this action.  Simply reply to the message
>> leaving the body and subject of the message in tact.
>>
>>
>> This mailing list is sponsored by The Alliance for Equality of Blind
>> Canadians For More Information Please call 1 800 561 4774 Or visit
>> our web site at www.BlindCanadians.ca
>>
>> Disclaimer Neither the AEBC or this list moderator will be held
>> responsible for material posted on this list. ''If you say it, then
>> you are responsible for it.''
>> Messages are posted as they were intended by the author!
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>

--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-2333
309-413-6541 fax