|
|
|
SSCommitted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 19, 2010 3:11 PM
Points: 1,636,
Visits: 1,215
|
|
James Rochez (5/14/2009)
bob.willsie (5/14/2009)
...
Second, if the "oral" version of a book is created via a text to speech translator, I would view that as an "alternative form" of reading by the end user. Thus, Kindle "reading" the book to me is no different than having my friend or wife read it to me if I am blind.
However, if the "oral" version is created by recording the writer, in their own voice, that is a different issue. In that case, the writer is in fact, also a "performer", and should receive appropriate payment for the "performance of reading" just as an actor that does a voiceover for a cartoon or commercial would be paid.
Perhaps the best solution is for the writer to come to an agreement with the publisher before publication of the book.
In this case, that would make the Kindle the "performer" since it is doing the reading. If a book publisher expects to be compensated for both the written and read versions, shouldn't they also be responsible for compensating both the author that wrote the material AND the Kindle for its text-to-speech "performance"?
I think the issue is the recording more than the initial speech. There is no recording of the Kindle performance, as I understand it. It's just that the technology enables the machine to read out loud similar to the way a human would read the text. The quotation I posted earlier addresses the issue that this is not a public "performance" by the Kindle in cases where a person is listening in their home, car, etc.
With an audiobook, however, there is a recording regardless of where the person is listening. The public part (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) is that the recording is made with the express purpose of making many copies to sell to the public as an alternative version of the book. That is, buy the print "recording" or the audio "recording," or buy both. In that case, the reading of the book is analogous to a video image of someone acting in a movie.
Are you suggesting that book publishers shouldn't be paid for the audiobooks they publish? I'm not clear.
- webrunner
Microsoft Certified Technical Specialist
(SQL Server 2005)
How to Post Performance Problems
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 3:50 AM
Points: 23,170,
Visits: 6,927
|
|
I may not have presented my argument well.
The writers organizations (or some of them) feel that the text-to-speech feature is a "performance" and that right is not granted. If you want the audio copy of the book, you should pay for that separately.
I feel that this is incorrect. I believe that if an audio book is produced, that performer should be paid, as should the writer, but that is separate from the written book. HOWEVER, a text-to-speech performance, which is generated by technology, SHOULD NOT cost more money.
Moreover, I am extremely disappointed that Amazon disabled this feature in the Kindle 2.
My wife believes that text to speech does rob the authors of some revenue, and potentially performers. She sees it as the writer's organization. I had to stop talking about it because I was frustrated with her about it.
I think this is ridiculous, and I am worried that it will get extended to other types of data. What if our sales data loses the right for us to mail to someone? That's not a great example, but I'm worried what rights lawyers might come up with.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Veteran
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 19, 2010 7:45 AM
Points: 211,
Visits: 755
|
|
James Rochez (5/14/2009)
[quote]
In this case, that would make the Kindle the "performer" since it is doing the reading. If a book publisher expects to be compensated for both the written and read versions, shouldn't they also be responsible for compensating both the author that wrote the material AND the Kindle for its text-to-speech "performance"?
I think this is the best point so far! Cheers, James.
 Kate The Great 
If you don't have time to do it right the first time, where will you find time to do it again?
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 3:50 AM
Points: 23,170,
Visits: 6,927
|
|
blandry (5/14/2009)
Do you know that technically, when you go to your local bar or pub and hear a band play someone else's song, they are supposed to be paying royalties for the performance of that song. Guess how many actually pay?
Most bars/clubs/restaurants pay ASCAP a fee for the use of music. It varies if you're a restaurant (background music), a nightclub/bar with dancing, and someone that has live music. The fees are there to be distributed to artists. How they distribute stuff, I have no idea, and I bet that this makes record companies money and not much for artists.
But in any case, if you don't pay it, and they catch you, it's a big deal. They easily scan yellow pages (or used to) for bars, and compare with their licensees. They can easily sue you for this.
I believe that this covers performances as when there's live music, there isn't recorded music. If you have bands performing originals, they don't know, and the bar ends up paying more than they need to.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 19, 2010 3:11 PM
Points: 1,636,
Visits: 1,215
|
|
Steve Jones - Editor (5/14/2009)
I may not have presented my argument well.
The writers organizations (or some of them) feel that the text-to-speech feature is a "performance" and that right is not granted. If you want the audio copy of the book, you should pay for that separately.
I feel that this is incorrect. I believe that if an audio book is produced, that performer should be paid, as should the writer, but that is separate from the written book. HOWEVER, a text-to-speech performance, which is generated by technology, SHOULD NOT cost more money.
Moreover, I am extremely disappointed that Amazon disabled this feature in the Kindle 2.
My wife believes that text to speech does rob the authors of some revenue, and potentially performers. She sees it as the writer's organization. I had to stop talking about it because I was frustrated with her about it.
I think this is ridiculous, and I am worried that it will get extended to other types of data. What if our sales data loses the right for us to mail to someone? That's not a great example, but I'm worried what rights lawyers might come up with.
I agree with everything you said, Steve, and I think you were clear. However, I think the underlying issue is murky and can be misinterpreted - that the text-to-speech feature has the potential to render audiobooks obsolete. Although I think at the present time, the market may see people decide whether they like the sound of the Kindle "voice" enough to forgo paying for a human-performed audiobook.
But I see where your wife is coming from. Performers are sure to start losing revenue with competition from the Kindle. Just like drivers of horse-drawn carts started to lose revenue with the advent of the car, and candle makers started to lose revenue with the advent of electric lights.
The performers and publishers may not be on strong legal footing with the current lawsuit, and it may be easy to poke fun at the attempted arguments in this case, but the writing is on the wall, so to speak. Text-to-speech will eventually become good enough to rival human performance, at which point no one will buy audiobooks if text-to-speech is free, unless they have a soft spot for it. And how long do you think it will be - if it hasn't been done already - before someone has a tool to record the Kindle text-to-speech output and post it to file-sharing sites?
Those are the real threats to audio revenue that lie behind the current lawsuits, however frivolous they may or may not be.
- webrunner
Microsoft Certified Technical Specialist
(SQL Server 2005)
How to Post Performance Problems
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 3:50 AM
Points: 23,170,
Visits: 6,927
|
|
skjoldtc (5/14/2009)
Steve, do you find the Kindle to be worth the cost? I was thinking that for the price, I'd want color. The Kindle II has a battery that is not replaceable. That's a deal breaker for me, I think.
I have a bunch of blog posts on the Kindle that you might check out.
I think that the Kindle is too expensive. I have an associates account with Amazon, and with book reviews, and stuff from my blog, I earned about $200 for the Kindle. So at $150, it made sense to me. I've also purchased perhaps 50 books for it, and if I say that I save $5-10, it's been a good deal.
Color? Not sure, for what? If you want magazines, then I'm not sure it works well. I haven't subscribed to any. Newspapers, book I read, none have color, so no big deal.
I usually have it with me, so if you see me somewhere, ask to see it. Or check out a Kindle locally. Amazon let people register who had Kindles and would be willing to show them off.
|
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, October 02, 2009 6:43 AM
Points: 57,
Visits: 151
|
|
[/quote]
In this case, that would make the Kindle the "performer" since it is doing the reading. If a book publisher expects to be compensated for both the written and read versions, shouldn't they also be responsible for compensating both the author that wrote the material AND the Kindle for its text-to-speech "performance"?[/quote]
Interesting question. Doesn't "Kindle" actually get a cut of the "book" price by virtue of the book being sold in Kindle format? Distribution costs for multiple copies of electronic data are next to nothing. I have to believe that whoever owns Kindle is getting some form of payment; either in margin, or perhaps marketing spiff.
Or, perhaps one could consider that "Kindle" is being paid for all it's performances when it is purchased, given that it is really a "presentation media".
So, this raises the question of whether a writer should be paid more if a book is published in multiple languages. Content is the same, only the presentation changes.
|
|
|
|
|
Grasshopper
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 1:54 PM
Points: 15,
Visits: 39
|
|
webrunner (5/14/2009)
...that the text-to-speech feature has the potential to render audiobooks obsolete. Although I think at the present time, the market may see people decide whether they like the sound of the Kindle "voice" enough to forgo paying for a human-performed audiobook....
My prediction, for what it's worth, which is not much, is that text-to-speech will no more replace audiobooks than audiobooks have replaced books. Remember the ruckus when audiobooks first arrived on the scene? Some things is life just can't be replicated. I can foresee advances in text-to-speech technology, but never to the degree that it could replace the human voice and all of it's natural qualities.
There are electronic candles available that produce pleasant aroma, but, you know, they just don't beat the real thing.
On a different note, text-to-speech technology reaches far beyond Kindle. There are tons of freeware products available and even the text-to-speech functionality available in Adobe Acrobat isn't that bad. This technology is being widely incorporated into k-12 and Higher Education. It's a technology and copyright issue, but it's also an accessibility issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Old Hand
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:18 AM
Points: 387,
Visits: 389
|
|
bob.willsie (5/14/2009)
In this case, that would make the Kindle the "performer" since it is doing the reading. If a book publisher expects to be compensated for both the written and read versions, shouldn't they also be responsible for compensating both the author that wrote the material AND the Kindle for its text-to-speech "performance"?
Interesting question. Doesn't "Kindle" actually get a cut of the "book" price by virtue of the book being sold in Kindle format? Distribution costs for multiple copies of electronic data are next to nothing. I have to believe that whoever owns Kindle is getting some form of payment; either in margin, or perhaps marketing spiff.
Or, perhaps one could consider that "Kindle" is being paid for all it's performances when it is purchased, given that it is really a "presentation media".
So, this raises the question of whether a writer should be paid more if a book is published in multiple languages. Content is the same, only the presentation changes.
They are being paid for publishing in multiple languages, because the book is printed. They get paid on a per book basis, not the language, though the rate could be different for each language, but that would strictly be because of expected volume sold.
I agree with Bob here, that Kindle is being compensated as the performer, whether it's in the purchase price as the markup, or in the contract rate it pays for the content.
I imagine, though perhaps wrongly, that publishing rates are different for each media, considering the potential use. One rate for written, which includes certain inherent 'I can read this out load to my friends, but not in an auditorium' rights. One rate for audio, which includes rights for personal use, convertion to mp3 for my use only, or small group listening (in my car again, but not in a coffee shop). And one rate for electronic delivery. With electronic delivery, this rate would need to cover potential use, which I would think, by default, would include anything a computer might do with it (aside from making illegal copies and distributing them) like display for reading OR having the computer read it to you. Duh. Text - to - speech software has been around for a long time (longer than the Kindle is far enough for this thread), regardless of what you think about the quality. There is no reason to think this shouldn't have been taken into consideration when the electronic rate was negotiated.
Forgetting to negotiate something deemed a reasonable consideration is not cause for a lawsuit.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 3:50 AM
Points: 23,170,
Visits: 6,927
|
|
FWIW, as an author, my contracts have different royalty rates for different rights. Foreign languages, audio, etc.
|
|
|
|
