3 ms·

If you bought a movie (let's say a DVD), does that mean you should be able to get the book for free (even in ebook form)? IMO both are completely separate prod

by nickjj 7y ago

If you bought a movie (let's say a DVD), does that mean you should be able to get the book for free (even in ebook form)? IMO both are completely separate products. It should be up to the publisher on whether or not they want to bundle the text version for free with their audio book (some do).

jrochkind1 7y ago
If you bought a book, does that mean you should be able to read it out loud to your children for FREE?!?!?
- nickjj 7y ago
  That's a tricky one. I'm not a copyright lawyer. My spidey sense tells me it's probably in violation but it's one of those things that are so close to impossible to enforce that no one would ever get caught, plus if they somehow did they caught (their evil genius 5 year old planted a camera in the room, recorded it and sent it to the publisher) nothing bad would come of it because any publisher who sued a parent into ruins over reading a book to their kid would probably be outcast from society if the media got a hold of that story. Now, if you recorded that reading alone and put it on Youtube, I imagine that would for sure be a clear cut violation even if you didn't monetize the video. The same goes for reading it out loud in a public place. The only real difference there is you're no longer in the privacy of your own home and there's concrete proof of the violation in a much different context than reading to your kid. Now you're distributing copyright material. I had something similar come up with one of my video courses. Someone wanted to buy a single license of my course and then teach the course live to a bunch of high school students in Africa. They asked me if they could do this with only 1 license even though a bunch of students would be consuming the content. I said sure no problem and wished them the best and to ask me any questions if there were any issues. I guess that's one benefit of publishing things on your own. You can treat these things on a case by case basis.
UI_at_80x24 7y ago
That I think is exactly the point that we should be 'fighting' for. I bought $medium, and I want to consume it however I want. I didn't "request a license" to use it how they want me to. For Example, take a Stephen King book. If I bought a Stephen King hardcover book; I can use it as a paper-weight, bug-killer, timeless tome to read under the covers, or Other. If I bought the DVD movie, I can play it for personal enjoyment where-ever I want, however I want. I can also just listen to the audio output, or mute it and just have the video playing. I can consume it in anyway that I want. If I am buying an e-book, the options and methods of consumption change are different but should not be limited. If I ask my partner to read that hardcover book to me at night the Publisher doesn't get to charge me addition money for it. There have been text-to-speech computer programs going back DECADES. If I had Sound-Blaster 'SAY.exe' [1] read to me the ebook that I bought NOBODY would be crying over "you are stealing our monies!" The modern text-to-speech is nothing more then SAYv2019. If I don't want text-to-speech, I'll but the Audio-book and hear it performed by a real-person. [1]https://ibm-pc.org/manuals/other/creative/SoundBlaster15.PDF https://ibm-pc.org/manuals/other/creative/SoundBlaster15.PDF - page 25
beatgammit 7y ago
That's a different argument. The right argument is whether you should get subtitles and/or the script for free. Similar would be whether YouTube can automatically add subtitles to videos without explicit permission from the video uploader.
- nickjj 7y ago
  > Similar would be whether YouTube can automatically add subtitles to videos without explicit permission from the video uploader. That's a very good one. My personal opinion is Youtube should not be able to add captions without your consent because suddenly this changes everything. What if one day Youtube decides to add a transcript feature where they can turn a video into a decently formatted blog post. Now imagine if you had your own website where you used to make a blog post about your video manually and then uploaded your video to Youtube with a link back to your site. A move like that could remove a lot of traffic to your site because chances are Youtube would outrank your personal site by a lot in search results and would also give people less of a reason to ever click back to your site. But this is really similar to audio books vs text. They are both independent mediums and having access to 1 shouldn't guarantee free access to the other. It should be up to the discretion of the content creator (or publisher if they are not self published).
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Granting permission is probably in the YouTube ToS, at least if the lawyers thought about it and considered it to be an issue.
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    If you are deaf, you are really hoping that YouTube will add captions to everything, because that's the only way you know what is being said. It would "change everything" by giving deaf users access to youtube...
    - nickjj 7y ago
      It's more complicated than that. Auto-generated captions (something I deal with on a regular basis as I do create video courses) tend to be horrendously bad in quality even on major platforms. Especially with tech content (even if you talk crystal clear). Auto-generated captions that came out bad leaves both the reader wondering what "jean kids" means when you really said "jenkins" and it also de-values the content creator's brand because now you think "how did such crappy captions make their way into this video?". Now with that said, I'm all for providing human created / vetted captions that are accurate, but that should be up to the content creator to decide.
moftz 7y ago
Except a novelization of a movie is entirely different than the movie itself. Why is this any different than doing text-to-speech of an ebook? As long as this is done on-the-fly and the text isn't stored afterwards, what difference does it make in how the original piece of media is consumed? Amazon isn't selling either form of transcription. What if someone made a device for the deaf that would transcribe spoken word to text? Would it be fair for the manufacturer to be sued for possibly doing speech-to-text on some copyrighted recording?

by nickjj 7y ago

jrochkind1 7y ago

If you bought a book, does that mean you should be able to read it out loud to your children for FREE?!?!?

nickjj 7y ago
That's a tricky one. I'm not a copyright lawyer. My spidey sense tells me it's probably in violation but it's one of those things that are so close to impossible to enforce that no one would ever get caught, plus if they somehow did they caught (their evil genius 5 year old planted a camera in the room, recorded it and sent it to the publisher) nothing bad would come of it because any publisher who sued a parent into ruins over reading a book to their kid would probably be outcast from society if the media got a hold of that story. Now, if you recorded that reading alone and put it on Youtube, I imagine that would for sure be a clear cut violation even if you didn't monetize the video. The same goes for reading it out loud in a public place. The only real difference there is you're no longer in the privacy of your own home and there's concrete proof of the violation in a much different context than reading to your kid. Now you're distributing copyright material. I had something similar come up with one of my video courses. Someone wanted to buy a single license of my course and then teach the course live to a bunch of high school students in Africa. They asked me if they could do this with only 1 license even though a bunch of students would be consuming the content. I said sure no problem and wished them the best and to ask me any questions if there were any issues. I guess that's one benefit of publishing things on your own. You can treat these things on a case by case basis.

UI_at_80x24 7y ago

That I think is exactly the point that we should be 'fighting' for. I bought $medium, and I want to consume it however I want. I didn't "request a license" to use it how they want me to. For Example, take a Stephen King book. If I bought a Stephen King hardcover book; I can use it as a paper-weight, bug-killer, timeless tome to read under the covers, or Other. If I bought the DVD movie, I can play it for personal enjoyment where-ever I want, however I want. I can also just listen to the audio output, or mute it and just have the video playing. I can consume it in anyway that I want. If I am buying an e-book, the options and methods of consumption change are different but should not be limited. If I ask my partner to read that hardcover book to me at night the Publisher doesn't get to charge me addition money for it. There have been text-to-speech computer programs going back DECADES. If I had Sound-Blaster 'SAY.exe' [1] read to me the ebook that I bought NOBODY would be crying over "you are stealing our monies!" The modern text-to-speech is nothing more then SAYv2019. If I don't want text-to-speech, I'll but the Audio-book and hear it performed by a real-person. [1]https://ibm-pc.org/manuals/other/creative/SoundBlaster15.PDF https://ibm-pc.org/manuals/other/creative/SoundBlaster15.PDF - page 25

beatgammit 7y ago

That's a different argument. The right argument is whether you should get subtitles and/or the script for free. Similar would be whether YouTube can automatically add subtitles to videos without explicit permission from the video uploader.

nickjj 7y ago
> Similar would be whether YouTube can automatically add subtitles to videos without explicit permission from the video uploader. That's a very good one. My personal opinion is Youtube should not be able to add captions without your consent because suddenly this changes everything. What if one day Youtube decides to add a transcript feature where they can turn a video into a decently formatted blog post. Now imagine if you had your own website where you used to make a blog post about your video manually and then uploaded your video to Youtube with a link back to your site. A move like that could remove a lot of traffic to your site because chances are Youtube would outrank your personal site by a lot in search results and would also give people less of a reason to ever click back to your site. But this is really similar to audio books vs text. They are both independent mediums and having access to 1 shouldn't guarantee free access to the other. It should be up to the discretion of the content creator (or publisher if they are not self published).
- ghaff 7y ago
  Granting permission is probably in the YouTube ToS, at least if the lawyers thought about it and considered it to be an issue.
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  If you are deaf, you are really hoping that YouTube will add captions to everything, because that's the only way you know what is being said. It would "change everything" by giving deaf users access to youtube...
  - nickjj 7y ago
    It's more complicated than that. Auto-generated captions (something I deal with on a regular basis as I do create video courses) tend to be horrendously bad in quality even on major platforms. Especially with tech content (even if you talk crystal clear). Auto-generated captions that came out bad leaves both the reader wondering what "jean kids" means when you really said "jenkins" and it also de-values the content creator's brand because now you think "how did such crappy captions make their way into this video?". Now with that said, I'm all for providing human created / vetted captions that are accurate, but that should be up to the content creator to decide.

moftz 7y ago

Except a novelization of a movie is entirely different than the movie itself. Why is this any different than doing text-to-speech of an ebook? As long as this is done on-the-fly and the text isn't stored afterwards, what difference does it make in how the original piece of media is consumed? Amazon isn't selling either form of transcription. What if someone made a device for the deaf that would transcribe spoken word to text? Would it be fair for the manufacturer to be sued for possibly doing speech-to-text on some copyrighted recording?