4 ms·

Why the law suits. I would say: offer it with a big warning that this is automated and might be bad quality. Those books that have narrated versions can come wi

by gdcbe 4y ago

Why the law suits. I would say: offer it with a big warning that this is automated and might be bad quality. Those books that have narrated versions can come with a buy extra button to have a professionally narrated version. For which I’m probably more then happy to pay. As an avid reader with 3 kids it’s nice to be able to switch between audio and text book, depending on my availability and context. As such of no professionaly narrated version is available am automated one is way better then nothing. Also, having the progress sync between digital text book and audio version is a great UX improvement!

rockemsockem 4y ago
The lawsuits were because Amazon just did it, without any author/publisher buy in. They just said "you can convert this ebook using our TTS with the kindle" and the publishers did *not* like that. IMO that is how this should work, any text anywhere should be convertible to auido.
- gdcbe 4y ago
  It’s anyway just making it more difficult right, as ebooks can be converted anyway using an external program, many which have way to use gui’s. But i guess it’sas far as they can make use of liability laws
potatolicious 4y ago
> Why the law suits. Because the contracts between Amazon and the publishers do not permit this kind of work. Like, this is (legally) a pretty open and shut issue. Amazon has a license from the publisher for the book that permits a certain range of activities that are contemplated by the contract: showing short excerpts for marketing for example. IP licenses are carefully constructed, often because the rights are sold to different parties. You may for example license a book to adapt into a movie, but the contract would likely forbid you from adapting it for a TV show. The publisher may sell those two rights separately to two different parties. And these contracts likely either specifically forbid constructing an audiobook (automated or otherwise) from the original book, or at least do not contemplate it. That is a clear source of lawsuits where Amazon is likely clearly in the wrong. Another reply here mentions that the publishes do not "like" that Amazon went ahead and did this without consultation. That may very well be true - but more importantly (and constructively) it's likely that Amazon's behavior is specifically forbidden in the contract they voluntarily signed on to with the publisher.

by gdcbe 4y ago

rockemsockem 4y ago

The lawsuits were because Amazon just did it, without any author/publisher buy in. They just said "you can convert this ebook using our TTS with the kindle" and the publishers did *not* like that. IMO that is how this should work, any text anywhere should be convertible to auido.

gdcbe 4y ago
It’s anyway just making it more difficult right, as ebooks can be converted anyway using an external program, many which have way to use gui’s. But i guess it’sas far as they can make use of liability laws

potatolicious 4y ago

> Why the law suits. Because the contracts between Amazon and the publishers do not permit this kind of work. Like, this is (legally) a pretty open and shut issue. Amazon has a license from the publisher for the book that permits a certain range of activities that are contemplated by the contract: showing short excerpts for marketing for example. IP licenses are carefully constructed, often because the rights are sold to different parties. You may for example license a book to adapt into a movie, but the contract would likely forbid you from adapting it for a TV show. The publisher may sell those two rights separately to two different parties. And these contracts likely either specifically forbid constructing an audiobook (automated or otherwise) from the original book, or at least do not contemplate it. That is a clear source of lawsuits where Amazon is likely clearly in the wrong. Another reply here mentions that the publishes do not "like" that Amazon went ahead and did this without consultation. That may very well be true - but more importantly (and constructively) it's likely that Amazon's behavior is specifically forbidden in the contract they voluntarily signed on to with the publisher.