4 ms·

> I don't think that Apple providing a high quality narration tool with their phone which can be used on any ebook would infringe licensing terms. Oh, it defin

> I don't think that Apple providing a high quality narration tool with their phone which can be used on any ebook would infringe licensing terms. Oh, it definitely would. This produces a derivative work besides anything else. > It's not like they'd be saying "Here is this specific title for you to read/buy/rent", they'd be releasing a tool with the power to do that. That's exactly what they will be doing from the point of view of copyright law.

rockemsockem 4y ago
Citation needed? TTS tools exist on all computing platforms these days. The difference with this recent release is just that it sounds better. Apple would not be creating a derivative work, whoever uses it would be. EDIT: It has occurred to me that they may have signed a deal as part of Apple Books that says they won't release tools of this nature. I don't know if that is the case, but that isn't the scenario I'm talking about. Just the case where there is a tool that can do high quality TTS. I do not believe that violates any copyright since it's a tool.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  TTS tools are required for accessibility etc. However, "convert your ebook into audiobook with this amazing voice over" will run into issues. Amazon tried it: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123419309890963869 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123419309890963869
  - Osborne 4y ago
    [dead]
  - rockemsockem 4y ago
    Yeah, I'm familiar with that. Amazon backed down from the fight. So there was no answer to the legal question. EDIT: Also, since I can't get through the WSJ paywall, here is Amazon's complete statement from the time: Quote: Here is the full text of Amazon’s statement: Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given. Furthermore, we ourselves are a major participant in the professionally narrated audiobooks business through our subsidiaries Audible and Brilliance. We believe text-to-speech will introduce new customers to the convenience of listening to books and thereby grow the professionally narrated audiobooks business. Nevertheless, we strongly believe many rights holders will be more comfortable with the text-to-speech feature if they are in the driver’s seat. Therefore, we are modifying our systems so that rights holders can decide on a title by title basis whether they want text-to-speech enabled or disabled for any particular title. We have already begun to work on the technical changes required to give authors and publishers that choice. With this new level of control, publishers and authors will be able to decide for themselves whether it is in their commercial interests to leave text-to-speech enabled. We believe many will decide that it is. Customers tell us that with Kindle, they read more, and buy more books. We are passionate about bringing the benefits of modern technology to long-form reading.

rockemsockem 4y ago

Citation needed? TTS tools exist on all computing platforms these days. The difference with this recent release is just that it sounds better. Apple would not be creating a derivative work, whoever uses it would be. EDIT: It has occurred to me that they may have signed a deal as part of Apple Books that says they won't release tools of this nature. I don't know if that is the case, but that isn't the scenario I'm talking about. Just the case where there is a tool that can do high quality TTS. I do not believe that violates any copyright since it's a tool.

dmitriid 4y ago
TTS tools are required for accessibility etc. However, "convert your ebook into audiobook with this amazing voice over" will run into issues. Amazon tried it: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123419309890963869 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123419309890963869
- Osborne 4y ago
  [dead]
- rockemsockem 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm familiar with that. Amazon backed down from the fight. So there was no answer to the legal question. EDIT: Also, since I can't get through the WSJ paywall, here is Amazon's complete statement from the time: Quote: Here is the full text of Amazon’s statement: Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given. Furthermore, we ourselves are a major participant in the professionally narrated audiobooks business through our subsidiaries Audible and Brilliance. We believe text-to-speech will introduce new customers to the convenience of listening to books and thereby grow the professionally narrated audiobooks business. Nevertheless, we strongly believe many rights holders will be more comfortable with the text-to-speech feature if they are in the driver’s seat. Therefore, we are modifying our systems so that rights holders can decide on a title by title basis whether they want text-to-speech enabled or disabled for any particular title. We have already begun to work on the technical changes required to give authors and publishers that choice. With this new level of control, publishers and authors will be able to decide for themselves whether it is in their commercial interests to leave text-to-speech enabled. We believe many will decide that it is. Customers tell us that with Kindle, they read more, and buy more books. We are passionate about bringing the benefits of modern technology to long-form reading.