6 ms·

>For the same reason you're not entitled to a free (or even discount) paperback if you buy the hardback But I am. It would take some work, but I can undo the

>For the same reason you're not entitled to a free (or even discount) paperback if you buy the hardback But I am. It would take some work, but I can undo the binding of the hardback and turn it into a softback. I can also scan the pages and print them into a new softback. I can even just retype the story and print it into a new softback. Now, selling, trading, or lending those copies will be an issue, but I don't think anyone here is arguing that someone should be able to use speech to text and then sell the text generated, so the comparison stills stands. And I can't expect to be given an official softback book, just like I don't have to expect to be given an official text version. But being able to turn an audio book into text seems well within my rights.

jplayer01 7y ago
> But being able to turn an audio book into text seems well within my rights. Maybe it is. The law isn't the best place to glean any useful moral principles from. I think if you're willing to put in the effort, nobody's going to stop you from making your own text version from the audiobook. But once you're in a position where you're distributing that unauthorized version, or you're already a distributor of the audiobook version and add a feature that automatically creates a text version (without appropriate licensing from the copyright holder), it's something else entirely.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >The law isn't the best place to glean any useful moral principles from. I should clarify I was talking about the existing legal rights owning property entitles me to. Moral rights as well, but that discussion isn't nearly as relevant or useful in this particular case. Sorry for not clarifying. >and add a feature that automatically creates a text version This is where I'm not so certain about. If they add a keyboard and notepad that lets me take audio myself, then where is the significant difference in adding software that makes it easier for me to do the transcription? Is there a certain level of ease that anything easier than that becomes illegal?
  - jplayer01 7y ago
    > This is where I'm not so certain about. If they add a keyboard and notepad that lets me take audio myself, then where is the significant difference in adding software that makes it easier for me to do the transcription? Is there a certain level of ease that anything easier than that becomes illegal? I don't think there's any uncertainty here. They're creating a text version and distributing it without appropriate licensing. If they give you a notepad, and you happen to write a text version, it's not them creating or distributing it, but it's still unlicensed. If it makes its way on their platform in some way, they're going to need permission, again. Further, I don't understand why anybody here is giving Amazon the benefit of the doubt. If they want to do this, they can negotiate the required licensing from the publishers. The fact that they've done it without doing this or even discussing it with the publishers shows their clear intent to do what they want, regardless of how much it runs afoul of any laws, simply because they're big enough to fight any lawsuits for ages.
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      >They're creating a text version and distributing it without appropriate licensing. If they create it on their machines and distribute it, then I agree this is an issue. It doesn't matter if it is an AI or if they paid someone to transcribe it, they are distributing a work they likely don't have permission to do so. But if they provide you an application to create it on your machine, then it is you who does the work to make a copy and distributing the application is not an issue (there is an underlying issue of distributing a neural network that was trained by private work, but I'm not certain that is the case here and I think that is a separate issue to discuss that is irrelevant to the use of that neural network). It is my understanding that the user's device does the translation, but if that isn't the case then my entire argument doesn't apply to this particular case. >Further, I don't understand why anybody here is giving Amazon the benefit of the doubt. Personally I don't care about Amazon. But I do care about the precedent set when it comes to distributing applications that make doing something legal easier (at near zero cost). I personally don't even prefer the argument they use and don't even think it works that great as an argument (because it doesn't work if you replace the AI with a person hired to do the same job).
Tomte 7y ago
You're also free to listen to the audio book and write down the story yourself. Perfectly legal.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  Nope. At least not according to [0][1]. I don't see why you would be. You aren't permitted to manually copy a book to notepaper, either. The whole point of copyrights are, after all, to manage the rights to copy. [0] https://answers.justia.com/question/2017/09/03/is-it-legal-to-transcribe-audio-books-in-313401 https://answers.justia.com/question/2017/09/03/is-it-legal-t... [1] https://www.quora.com/Are-audio-transcriptions-legally-allowed-on-copyrighted-text-if-its-only-for-personal-use/answer/Todd-Gardiner https://www.quora.com/Are-audio-transcriptions-legally-allow...
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Those don't exactly come across as authoritative sources. Show me some specific case law and I might start to believe it. IANAL but, at least as a practical matter, anything along these lines that's done for personal/internal use seems likely fair game. Someone is seriously going to make a case that I can't transcribe a copy of a speech or other recording for my own use? It's external distribution that gets stickier--especially as you get beyond short excerpts to a full and complete work. ADDED: And, yes, anyone can sue anyone for anything. But arguments that something could technically be construed as a legal violation even though no one has ever been called on it in the history of the legal system aren't terribly convincing.
    - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
      > anything along these lines that's done for personal/internal use seems likely fair game How about students photocopying books? Universities seem pretty convinced that's not permitted.
      - SkyBelow 7y ago
        It has been some years but I don't remember mine ever having an issue with me copying books I own. They didn't even have an issue with copying books I borrowed, which seems far more suspect.
magashna 7y ago
Sounds like you should play that audio book and start typing.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  That's probably copyright infringement. [0][1] [0] https://answers.justia.com/question/2017/09/03/is-it-legal-to-transcribe-audio-books-in-313401 https://answers.justia.com/question/2017/09/03/is-it-legal-t... [1] https://www.quora.com/Are-audio-transcriptions-legally-allowed-on-copyrighted-text-if-its-only-for-personal-use/answer/Todd-Gardiner https://www.quora.com/Are-audio-transcriptions-legally-allow...
yk 7y ago
I am inclined to agree, however Amazon basically offers you the service of scanning and rebinding as a service, and as you said that is basically selling the rebound book.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  I think it is the difference between offering the service of scanning and rebinding and offering the service of selling a scanning and rebinding machine. If I buy the machine, then I'm free to use it to make my own copies. I mentioned in another post, my understanding is the AI is running on the users machine (given neural networks are cheap to run and expensive to train, it seems plausible the phone is capable of running it). If I'm wrong then my comments don't apply and the issue is more convoluted (I would almost agree it isn't legal in such a case, but I would first have to see about some case law to what I think of as equivalent services, such as online backups/storage/vcr to dvd services).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SilasX 7y ago
To extend your analogy, it would be like a bookstore selling (or renting out) a “debinder” machine that can strip a hard cover off a book and turn it into a paperback (and vice versa). Or, perhaps, a book compressor that can compress a book in exactly the right way so that it becomes a smaller, more portable version of it. (More generally, there are already lots of products that “covert” a book to a similar but more useful item: bookmarks, stands that hold it open, etc.) Publishers may not like that product, and may even embargo dealers that sell them, but it’s not clear that they would have any kind of legal right to stop them, even if they were only used for this one purpose.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  This analogy doesn't work, because different laws apply to physical goods. You're allowed to physically do whatever you want to the copy of a book you've purchased. You can fold it, you can tear it, you can burn it. Hell, you can even eat it if you really want. I can also scan the pages and print them into a new softback. I can even just retype the story and print it into a new softback. (The quote is from the parent's comment, not the one I directly replied to but my reply fits here better.) This is not permissible under copyright law, and never has been. That would be creating a new copy, which is exactly what copyright law was created to prevent.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >(The quote is from the parent's comment, not the one I directly replied to but my reply fits here better.) This is not permissible under copyright law, and never has been. That would be creating a new copy, which is exactly what copyright law was created to prevent. My understanding is that this is entirely legal as long as you don't sell the copy. Borrowing/giving it away would likely be illegal but not worth prosecuting. But a copy solely as a personal backup is allowed. We do that with data all the time.

jplayer01 7y ago

> But being able to turn an audio book into text seems well within my rights. Maybe it is. The law isn't the best place to glean any useful moral principles from. I think if you're willing to put in the effort, nobody's going to stop you from making your own text version from the audiobook. But once you're in a position where you're distributing that unauthorized version, or you're already a distributor of the audiobook version and add a feature that automatically creates a text version (without appropriate licensing from the copyright holder), it's something else entirely.

SkyBelow 7y ago
>The law isn't the best place to glean any useful moral principles from. I should clarify I was talking about the existing legal rights owning property entitles me to. Moral rights as well, but that discussion isn't nearly as relevant or useful in this particular case. Sorry for not clarifying. >and add a feature that automatically creates a text version This is where I'm not so certain about. If they add a keyboard and notepad that lets me take audio myself, then where is the significant difference in adding software that makes it easier for me to do the transcription? Is there a certain level of ease that anything easier than that becomes illegal?
- jplayer01 7y ago
  > This is where I'm not so certain about. If they add a keyboard and notepad that lets me take audio myself, then where is the significant difference in adding software that makes it easier for me to do the transcription? Is there a certain level of ease that anything easier than that becomes illegal? I don't think there's any uncertainty here. They're creating a text version and distributing it without appropriate licensing. If they give you a notepad, and you happen to write a text version, it's not them creating or distributing it, but it's still unlicensed. If it makes its way on their platform in some way, they're going to need permission, again. Further, I don't understand why anybody here is giving Amazon the benefit of the doubt. If they want to do this, they can negotiate the required licensing from the publishers. The fact that they've done it without doing this or even discussing it with the publishers shows their clear intent to do what they want, regardless of how much it runs afoul of any laws, simply because they're big enough to fight any lawsuits for ages.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >They're creating a text version and distributing it without appropriate licensing. If they create it on their machines and distribute it, then I agree this is an issue. It doesn't matter if it is an AI or if they paid someone to transcribe it, they are distributing a work they likely don't have permission to do so. But if they provide you an application to create it on your machine, then it is you who does the work to make a copy and distributing the application is not an issue (there is an underlying issue of distributing a neural network that was trained by private work, but I'm not certain that is the case here and I think that is a separate issue to discuss that is irrelevant to the use of that neural network). It is my understanding that the user's device does the translation, but if that isn't the case then my entire argument doesn't apply to this particular case. >Further, I don't understand why anybody here is giving Amazon the benefit of the doubt. Personally I don't care about Amazon. But I do care about the precedent set when it comes to distributing applications that make doing something legal easier (at near zero cost). I personally don't even prefer the argument they use and don't even think it works that great as an argument (because it doesn't work if you replace the AI with a person hired to do the same job).

Tomte 7y ago

You're also free to listen to the audio book and write down the story yourself. Perfectly legal.

MaxBarraclough 7y ago
Nope. At least not according to [0][1]. I don't see why you would be. You aren't permitted to manually copy a book to notepaper, either. The whole point of copyrights are, after all, to manage the rights to copy. [0] https://answers.justia.com/question/2017/09/03/is-it-legal-to-transcribe-audio-books-in-313401 https://answers.justia.com/question/2017/09/03/is-it-legal-t... [1] https://www.quora.com/Are-audio-transcriptions-legally-allowed-on-copyrighted-text-if-its-only-for-personal-use/answer/Todd-Gardiner https://www.quora.com/Are-audio-transcriptions-legally-allow...
- ghaff 7y ago
  Those don't exactly come across as authoritative sources. Show me some specific case law and I might start to believe it. IANAL but, at least as a practical matter, anything along these lines that's done for personal/internal use seems likely fair game. Someone is seriously going to make a case that I can't transcribe a copy of a speech or other recording for my own use? It's external distribution that gets stickier--especially as you get beyond short excerpts to a full and complete work. ADDED: And, yes, anyone can sue anyone for anything. But arguments that something could technically be construed as a legal violation even though no one has ever been called on it in the history of the legal system aren't terribly convincing.
  - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
    > anything along these lines that's done for personal/internal use seems likely fair game How about students photocopying books? Universities seem pretty convinced that's not permitted.
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      It has been some years but I don't remember mine ever having an issue with me copying books I own. They didn't even have an issue with copying books I borrowed, which seems far more suspect.

magashna 7y ago

Sounds like you should play that audio book and start typing.

MaxBarraclough 7y ago
That's probably copyright infringement. [0][1] [0] https://answers.justia.com/question/2017/09/03/is-it-legal-to-transcribe-audio-books-in-313401 https://answers.justia.com/question/2017/09/03/is-it-legal-t... [1] https://www.quora.com/Are-audio-transcriptions-legally-allowed-on-copyrighted-text-if-its-only-for-personal-use/answer/Todd-Gardiner https://www.quora.com/Are-audio-transcriptions-legally-allow...

yk 7y ago

I am inclined to agree, however Amazon basically offers you the service of scanning and rebinding as a service, and as you said that is basically selling the rebound book.

SkyBelow 7y ago
I think it is the difference between offering the service of scanning and rebinding and offering the service of selling a scanning and rebinding machine. If I buy the machine, then I'm free to use it to make my own copies. I mentioned in another post, my understanding is the AI is running on the users machine (given neural networks are cheap to run and expensive to train, it seems plausible the phone is capable of running it). If I'm wrong then my comments don't apply and the issue is more convoluted (I would almost agree it isn't legal in such a case, but I would first have to see about some case law to what I think of as equivalent services, such as online backups/storage/vcr to dvd services).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

SilasX 7y ago

To extend your analogy, it would be like a bookstore selling (or renting out) a “debinder” machine that can strip a hard cover off a book and turn it into a paperback (and vice versa). Or, perhaps, a book compressor that can compress a book in exactly the right way so that it becomes a smaller, more portable version of it. (More generally, there are already lots of products that “covert” a book to a similar but more useful item: bookmarks, stands that hold it open, etc.) Publishers may not like that product, and may even embargo dealers that sell them, but it’s not clear that they would have any kind of legal right to stop them, even if they were only used for this one purpose.

gamblor956 7y ago
This analogy doesn't work, because different laws apply to physical goods. You're allowed to physically do whatever you want to the copy of a book you've purchased. You can fold it, you can tear it, you can burn it. Hell, you can even eat it if you really want. I can also scan the pages and print them into a new softback. I can even just retype the story and print it into a new softback. (The quote is from the parent's comment, not the one I directly replied to but my reply fits here better.) This is not permissible under copyright law, and never has been. That would be creating a new copy, which is exactly what copyright law was created to prevent.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >(The quote is from the parent's comment, not the one I directly replied to but my reply fits here better.) This is not permissible under copyright law, and never has been. That would be creating a new copy, which is exactly what copyright law was created to prevent. My understanding is that this is entirely legal as long as you don't sell the copy. Borrowing/giving it away would likely be illegal but not worth prosecuting. But a copy solely as a personal backup is allowed. We do that with data all the time.