7 ms·

It was a rights issue. The Authors' Guild argued that TTS required audio rights. Here's an article from 2009: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/200

It was a rights issue. The Authors' Guild argued that TTS required audio rights. Here's an article from 2009: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/mar/01/authors-guild-blocks-kindle-voice https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/mar/01/auth...

autoexec 4y ago
Just one more example of copyright stifling progress, innovation, and accessibility. The Authors Guild doesn't screw over the public by exploiting our insane copyright laws as often as the MPA or RIAA, but they've had their moments. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/09/authors-guild-sues-google https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/09/authors-guild-sues-goo... https://www.cnn.com/2011/09/13/tech/web/authors-guild-book-digitization/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2011/09/13/tech/web/authors-guild-book-d... https://popula.com/2022/01/22/what-kind-of-writer-accuses-libraries-of-stealing/ https://popula.com/2022/01/22/what-kind-of-writer-accuses-li...
- captaincaveman 4y ago
  Or publisher could license the audio right from the content creators, so they get compensated for the increase in profits that the tech/publisher is making?
  - muhehe 4y ago
    If it's audiobook, then yes, it's sort of a performance and you could argue they need different licence. But with tts you basically create the audio with your own means on your device. But you still bought the book, so there is you profit. If I read a book to my child, would you want me to buy audio license?
    - rland 4y ago
      I know it’s a rhetorical example, but given how stingy the copyright regime is: yes, yes they would. You maybe could manage a 20% off credit for the child’s listening rights.
    - captaincaveman 4y ago
      Whats the difference between Audiobook and realtime text to audio translation, isn't the outcome/experience the same? The difference between you reading and the software is one is 'mechanical', whether you want to constrain someone doing that in the rights you grant is debatable. Copyright enables you (gives the creator the 'freedom' to choose) to make such choices, its what people choose to limit is the problem, as they tend to be very stingy.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        > Whats the difference between Audiobook and realtime text to audio translation, isn't the outcome/experience the same? The "outcome" (text is read aloud) is the same if you read it aloud to yourself. Really the difference is that when a publisher releases an audiobook they hire someone (sometimes multiple someones) often an actor or the original author to sit in a recording studio and recite. They pay for things like studio time, sound engineering, editing, the narrators time, sometimes music or foley, etc. It's very much a different product. If you have a book and you recite it, or if you pay someone to come into your home and read it to you, or you get a bunch of software and have your computer read it for you, that's your right and at your own expense in terms of time, money, and effort. Some kind of text to speech software is expected on pretty much every device. Including such features in devices or using those features (especially the accessibility features) of your own devices isn't copyright infringement, shouldn't open you up to demands for payments from publishers, and is in no way comparable to a professionally produced audiobook. Maybe one day the tech will advance to where a program can gather the context needed to speak with and convey the correct emotion for each line and will be capable of delivering a solid performance, but right now we're lucky if more than 2/3 of the words are even pronounced correctly and the inflection isn't bizarre enough to make you question what was being said or distract you from the material.
        sycren 4y ago
        One of the problems is if TTS becomes comparable to an actor's performance. It's interesting that we are also now moving in the direction where you can copyright your voice.
rob74 4y ago
Next you will need audio rights if you want to read a bedtime story to your kids...

autoexec 4y ago

Just one more example of copyright stifling progress, innovation, and accessibility. The Authors Guild doesn't screw over the public by exploiting our insane copyright laws as often as the MPA or RIAA, but they've had their moments. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/09/authors-guild-sues-google https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/09/authors-guild-sues-goo... https://www.cnn.com/2011/09/13/tech/web/authors-guild-book-digitization/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2011/09/13/tech/web/authors-guild-book-d... https://popula.com/2022/01/22/what-kind-of-writer-accuses-libraries-of-stealing/ https://popula.com/2022/01/22/what-kind-of-writer-accuses-li...

captaincaveman 4y ago
Or publisher could license the audio right from the content creators, so they get compensated for the increase in profits that the tech/publisher is making?
- muhehe 4y ago
  If it's audiobook, then yes, it's sort of a performance and you could argue they need different licence. But with tts you basically create the audio with your own means on your device. But you still bought the book, so there is you profit. If I read a book to my child, would you want me to buy audio license?
  - rland 4y ago
    I know it’s a rhetorical example, but given how stingy the copyright regime is: yes, yes they would. You maybe could manage a 20% off credit for the child’s listening rights.
  - captaincaveman 4y ago
    Whats the difference between Audiobook and realtime text to audio translation, isn't the outcome/experience the same? The difference between you reading and the software is one is 'mechanical', whether you want to constrain someone doing that in the rights you grant is debatable. Copyright enables you (gives the creator the 'freedom' to choose) to make such choices, its what people choose to limit is the problem, as they tend to be very stingy.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > Whats the difference between Audiobook and realtime text to audio translation, isn't the outcome/experience the same? The "outcome" (text is read aloud) is the same if you read it aloud to yourself. Really the difference is that when a publisher releases an audiobook they hire someone (sometimes multiple someones) often an actor or the original author to sit in a recording studio and recite. They pay for things like studio time, sound engineering, editing, the narrators time, sometimes music or foley, etc. It's very much a different product. If you have a book and you recite it, or if you pay someone to come into your home and read it to you, or you get a bunch of software and have your computer read it for you, that's your right and at your own expense in terms of time, money, and effort. Some kind of text to speech software is expected on pretty much every device. Including such features in devices or using those features (especially the accessibility features) of your own devices isn't copyright infringement, shouldn't open you up to demands for payments from publishers, and is in no way comparable to a professionally produced audiobook. Maybe one day the tech will advance to where a program can gather the context needed to speak with and convey the correct emotion for each line and will be capable of delivering a solid performance, but right now we're lucky if more than 2/3 of the words are even pronounced correctly and the inflection isn't bizarre enough to make you question what was being said or distract you from the material.
      - sycren 4y ago
        One of the problems is if TTS becomes comparable to an actor's performance. It's interesting that we are also now moving in the direction where you can copyright your voice.

rob74 4y ago

Next you will need audio rights if you want to read a bedtime story to your kids...