5 ms·

I wonder if the publishers will also be mad about Android Q's upcoming feature which can transcribe any audio on your phone: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/1

by habosa 7y ago

I wonder if the publishers will also be mad about Android Q's upcoming feature which can transcribe any audio on your phone: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18528447/google-android-q-live-caption-video-transcription-io-2019 https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18528447/google-android-q-...

ToastyMallows 7y ago
This was my first thought as well. Android will basically be able to do the same thing that Audible is doing but on a much larger scale. I wonder how many different licenses that is going to affect?
leggomylibro 7y ago
Probably - publishers are always mad. Kindles actually used to have headphones jacks and a feature to automatically transcribe books that you owned into auto-generated speech. It was a fantastic accessibility feature, but the publishers complained, and the feature and the hardware supporting it were both removed. Although like people are saying, I guess the headphone jack also probably wasn't a very popular feature.
- javagram 7y ago
  Kindle Speech to Text is still a feature. It’s just optional for books to support it or not. Headphone jack was probably removed to save money... I think the high end kindles support Bluetooth.
  - umvi 7y ago
    > It’s just optional for books to support it or not. Translation: It's optional for the publishers to enable DRM restricting it or not. If I buy a paperback book, there is nothing stopping me from building a machine I can insert the book into that scans the page, OCRs it to text, and then converts the text to audio. DRM'd ebooks are a travesty, which is why I immediately remove all DRM as soon as I buy one so that I have full freedom to do whatever I want with it.
    - javagram 7y ago
      > If I buy a paperback book, there is nothing stopping me from building a machine I can insert the book into that scans the page, OCRs it to text, and then converts the text to audio. Nothing except the extreme hassle of doing so. Digital is different, because it’s so much easier and cheaper to perform such transformative operations.
      - umvi 7y ago
        The point is, there are no real restrictions to use of paperback books. I can whiteout words, tear out pages, cut out quotes and tape them on my wall, photocopy, etc. Basically you have the freedom to do anything you want with it because you own it. You would probably get into hot water if you tried to start selling/distributing unauthorized copies, but as far as private use goes, the sky is the limit. eBooks are extremely restrictive by comparison. They are so locked down that you can't do any of the above things I mentioned. You only have one basic freedom: to read it with approved software on an approved device with the publisher in complete control.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Kindles actually used to have speakers on the side, not just a headphone jack.
akersten 7y ago
This will be a wonderful accessibility feature, and if I were an Android developer and a publisher approached me to request that their app could opt-out, my reply would be "pound sand." I actually think it's pretty ridiculous how many folks are seemingly on the publishers' side here in the comments. Let's frame it a different way: * Manufacturers of reading glasses don't require a license to transform works a user consumes into a format more accessible to them * A built-in magnifier app does not require a license to transform works a user consumes into a format more accessible to them * A built-in audio transcriber - and this seems to be the sticking point somehow? - should not require a license to transform works a user consumes into a format more accessible to them A lot of people are getting caught up on this whole "whether it creates a derivative work" thing. And my point is: yes it does, of course it does, any method of consumption effectively does, and these should be explicitly allowed in the name of doing what's right for users and accessibility. Whether it's built in to the app or built in to the OS, the same transformation is happening. And it's such an essential freedom to be able to consume media that you purchased in an accessible form that I could really give a rat's ass if the publisher thinks that you're only "licensed" to consume that media when it's emitted as sound waves from their approved audio source.
kube-system 7y ago
The big difference here is that Audible is an audio-book seller which has licensing agreements with publishers, and they are commercially offering the text transcription. Those publishers probably don't have much leverage against third parties who make tools for personal use. Making copies for personal use is legal, as is manufacturing devices which can make copies. I figure the Android functionality is probably legal given this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....

by habosa 7y ago

ToastyMallows 7y ago

This was my first thought as well. Android will basically be able to do the same thing that Audible is doing but on a much larger scale. I wonder how many different licenses that is going to affect?

leggomylibro 7y ago

Probably - publishers are always mad. Kindles actually used to have headphones jacks and a feature to automatically transcribe books that you owned into auto-generated speech. It was a fantastic accessibility feature, but the publishers complained, and the feature and the hardware supporting it were both removed. Although like people are saying, I guess the headphone jack also probably wasn't a very popular feature.

javagram 7y ago
Kindle Speech to Text is still a feature. It’s just optional for books to support it or not. Headphone jack was probably removed to save money... I think the high end kindles support Bluetooth.
- umvi 7y ago
  > It’s just optional for books to support it or not. Translation: It's optional for the publishers to enable DRM restricting it or not. If I buy a paperback book, there is nothing stopping me from building a machine I can insert the book into that scans the page, OCRs it to text, and then converts the text to audio. DRM'd ebooks are a travesty, which is why I immediately remove all DRM as soon as I buy one so that I have full freedom to do whatever I want with it.
  - javagram 7y ago
    > If I buy a paperback book, there is nothing stopping me from building a machine I can insert the book into that scans the page, OCRs it to text, and then converts the text to audio. Nothing except the extreme hassle of doing so. Digital is different, because it’s so much easier and cheaper to perform such transformative operations.
    - umvi 7y ago
      The point is, there are no real restrictions to use of paperback books. I can whiteout words, tear out pages, cut out quotes and tape them on my wall, photocopy, etc. Basically you have the freedom to do anything you want with it because you own it. You would probably get into hot water if you tried to start selling/distributing unauthorized copies, but as far as private use goes, the sky is the limit. eBooks are extremely restrictive by comparison. They are so locked down that you can't do any of the above things I mentioned. You only have one basic freedom: to read it with approved software on an approved device with the publisher in complete control.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Kindles actually used to have speakers on the side, not just a headphone jack.

akersten 7y ago

This will be a wonderful accessibility feature, and if I were an Android developer and a publisher approached me to request that their app could opt-out, my reply would be "pound sand." I actually think it's pretty ridiculous how many folks are seemingly on the publishers' side here in the comments. Let's frame it a different way: * Manufacturers of reading glasses don't require a license to transform works a user consumes into a format more accessible to them * A built-in magnifier app does not require a license to transform works a user consumes into a format more accessible to them * A built-in audio transcriber - and this seems to be the sticking point somehow? - should not require a license to transform works a user consumes into a format more accessible to them A lot of people are getting caught up on this whole "whether it creates a derivative work" thing. And my point is: yes it does, of course it does, any method of consumption effectively does, and these should be explicitly allowed in the name of doing what's right for users and accessibility. Whether it's built in to the app or built in to the OS, the same transformation is happening. And it's such an essential freedom to be able to consume media that you purchased in an accessible form that I could really give a rat's ass if the publisher thinks that you're only "licensed" to consume that media when it's emitted as sound waves from their approved audio source.

kube-system 7y ago

The big difference here is that Audible is an audio-book seller which has licensing agreements with publishers, and they are commercially offering the text transcription. Those publishers probably don't have much leverage against third parties who make tools for personal use. Making copies for personal use is legal, as is manufacturing devices which can make copies. I figure the Android functionality is probably legal given this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....