[A2k] Re: [Aebc] Another 'misguided' author makes his 'ridiculous'opinionknown, re: Kindle TTS. Alert the Coalition!
Ross Eadie
readie@mts.net
Tue Apr 14 06:57:37 2009
Paul you are still wrong. Like a magnifying glass or a pair of eye glasses,
the text to speech merely runs over the electronic words in what ever font
face. The text to speech once past the words is like the eye glasses in
that it no longer exists in that spot until I bring the voice synthesis that
way again. I can read the book twice as well if I purchase it. If you
start to charge to much for the electronic text to the point I cannot read
it twice under a license, I will no longer buy books and live with radio.
But I get away from my point which is simply I am not saving the text to
speech in a file for another reading. I am merely going over it with my
looking blassess in audio. If you continue to take the stance about JFW or
Window Eyes making the work somehow different, you and others will have to
go after people with photographic memories. They will store the book with
their own opinions applied. A copyright violation? No because this type of
change does not equal a derivative work.
And hey why not mention the idea of someone speaking a poem out loud to
their significant other. Is this audible version a violation of copyright?
It would be reading the whole work to another. Oh and by the way, I am not
a thief. I take my responsibility to heart like copyright holders should
take their responsibility to heart. It is not enough for an author as
successful as Robert Sawyer to say he gave up his royalties for special
little old me and tohers who are blind. He can develop a business model to
meet the reading needs of all.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:21 AM
To: readie@mts.net
Cc: beryl williams; 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!
Dear Ross Eadie, and all,
I think you've just misread and misinterpreted what I've said in the text
below where I stipulated (personally) to the technology for anyone who
believes they need it. While other regimes might be burdensome, what I
support is a text to speech for those who say they need it for any kind of
disability, without any substantial investigation or need for proof. Any
abuse of this system, if any at all, can be addressed after it occurs -- the
usual approach of free societies.
That being said, and again unless you are from a list above that was somehow
not cc'd on the correspondence, I've also identified various plausible legal
theories that suggest to me that anyone that has bought Kindle based on
advertising claims of this capability would probably have a decent or even
great cause of action against Amazon because express warranties about a
product's capabilities supercede any disclaimers to the contrary.
The primary place where I disagree is the overly blithe and misleading
insistence that computerization text-to-speech is no different than a
magnifying glass. This is not the case for many reasons, not the least of
which is that any kind of digital format makes the copyright far easier to
violate and steal. In the digital area, one has a right to an ARCHIVAL
(unused) backup copy of software -- to ensure the proper operation of ONE
piece of the software) but one does not, in the print realm, have a right to
photocopy the entire book one owns in order to have an archival copy or what
have you. Books don't malfunction in their usual applications the way
software does, so copyright law distinguishes between print and digital
formats.
(Licensing EULAS may extend, via contract law, more rights and/or more terms
than that afforded via copyright, but that is a matter of contract in which
the consumer has approximately zero bargaining power).
If an author wishes to publish a copyrighted book, one of their exclusive
rights is to prohibit Others from copying it. An electronic photocopier is
a scanning limited use computer that transfers images onto other paper. A
"scanner" is a scanning computer that transfers images onto disks or some
other electronic format.
It's the Transformation, or switch, from print to electronic that both
constitutes a copy under copyright law as well as makes stealing the work
enormously easier and really cheap too, as copying nearly all computer files
is (and proprietary files as well, if one has expertise). I used to run a
photocopying firm, and it is not enormously cheap nor really easy to copy an
entire book.
As I've stated before, the various interests on both sides are legitimate
and I think accommodations can be made. But they won't be made if one side
or the other, or parts thereof, insist on asserting that the other position
is "unbelievable" insane, lunacy or the like.
For my part, I even pointed to links for briefs that can be applied by
analogy to help existing Kindle customers using existing business law (UCC),
contract law and consumer law.
The real issues arise when any author that does NOT choose to go digital
(those that do assume risks) is forced to go digital (and, in amazon's case,
proprietary as well). THus, the analogies to present day text to speech
readers on computers do not apply because the works being translated that
way have presumably already been intentionally chosen to be in the digital
realm, but an author or artist has the right NOT to have their works in the
digital realm. I gave the differences, or some of them, in speech vs. print
before, but I'll add that every artist I've talked to that is serious about
colors in paints insists that digital/computerized colors are quite
inferior.
in fact, serious galleries still widely insist on SLIDES taken with regular
films and not digital prints or slides, simply because the color
reproduction in the translation from "prints" to digital color is not
anywhere near faithful enough for these professionals.
I think the proper balance is to sell text to speech for anyone who simply
says "yes, I certify that I have a need for this technology based on my
health or disability and that without it my access to knowledge would be
substantially restricted." That's good enough for me, except that the law
would provide for some kind of deterrent for the abuse of this freely given
certification.
Paul Lehto
Juris Doctor
On 4/13/09, Ross Eadie <eeadie@mts.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-2333
309-413-6541 fax