[blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Responds to AuthorsGuild Statement on the Amazon Kindle 2

Sat Feb 14 13:02:34 UTC 2009

What's at issue here is the definition of "an audio version of their work."
I think you're absolutely right that an author has the right to control
whether his work will be read by a voice actor and sold to the public, or
whether it will be dramatized as a radio play. However, text-to-speech
software reading an electronic text aloud isn't a separate or derivative
work; it's merely a format shift. Now, if I generate a text-to-speech
version of a book, convert it to an MP3 file, and sell it to my friends,
then I've violated the author's copyright. But if I read that text-to-speech
version in the privacy of my own home, I haven't. The Authors Guild is
trying to say that reading aloud, when done by a machine, is somehow
different from reading aloud when done, say, by a parent to his kids. In my
opinion that's a distinction without a difference. Now, if that same parent
invites the neighbors' kids over and charges their parents for the privilege
of hearing him read a story, then you have a copyright violation, but not
when he simply reads the story aloud in his home. And I think you're right
that even if the authors could technically win on the audio version
argument, the use of the text in a different format by a blind person would
still be aprotected fair use. But I see that as a fallback argument, in case
some court rules with the Authors Guild on the first issue.

Patrick's argument relying on the betamax decision is I think the best
analogy. If I remember right, the Betamax decision had to do with VCR's, and
movie makers argued among other things that a person could generate illegal
copies of a work using that technology. But the fact that a technology *can*
be used for illegal purposes doesn't mean that all purposes for which it can
be used are illegal. With VCR's, watching a video tape of a program in your
own home was ruled to be legal; selling that video tape to someone else
would have been illegal. But the studios were not allowed by the courts to
take away the fair use rights of viewers simply because some people might
abuse those rights. 

Authors and publishers want us to stick to the old model where a book has to
be produced in a specialized format to be used by the blind. That model has
served us reasonably well, but with today's technology there's simply no
reason for it to be the *only* model. Ultimately, I want to be able to buy a
brand new book from Amazon and read it right away, just like everyone else
does. Whether I read it in Braille, via text-to-speech, or by some other
means is not relevant to the discussion, as long as all I'm doing is reading
the work for my own personal pleasure or edification. Authors and publishers
want to slice the pie of rights as thinly as possible so that they can sell
the same work more than once. They're afraid that text-to-speech will kill
their ability to sell audio books. I don't think this is true. There are
many times when a novel has been available both on Bookshare and on Audible
and I've decided to buy the audio book because I prefer that fiction be read
by a human reader; I'm not as picky about nonfiction. So I thik there's room
for both formats.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:59 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Responds to
AuthorsGuild Statement on the Amazon Kindle 2

Good morning,

I think that is reasonable for an author to be able to treat the right to a
printed version of their work separately than the rights to an audio version
of their work.  However, it is also reasonable that visually impaired
readers, or any otherwise textually impaired readers, be able to access a
copy of the work in an accessible format.

I don't think that these two propositions are in conflict with each other.
When I was in school publishers would send me digital copies of their texts,
while my classmates had to work with printed versions.  If I were to share
the digital copy with a student who had purchased the printed version I
would be violating copyright, as I was granted a license to use the digital
copy myself, and not to share it with outhers.

Everett

On 13-Feb-09, at 9:54 AM, Locke Milholland wrote:

> * Moving your lips while reading in front of someone who can read lips 
> is therefore a copyright violation.
> * allowing someone to read over your shoulder is a copyright 
> violation.
> *Sitting on the beach and reading with reflective mirrored sunglasses 
> is a copyright violation.
> *remembering what you read, is a copyright violation, if over 100 
> words and/or not properly cited.
>
> Future litigation:
> Timex v. guy who answered when asked for the time.
> Rand Mcnally v. guy who gave directions MLB v. guy who told his friend 
> the score without the expressed written consent of Major League 
> Baseball and its affiliates
>
> Common sense v. copyright holders.
> Locke
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Freeh,Jessica (by way of David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com>)" 
> <JFreeh at nfb.org
> >
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:38 PM
> To: <david.andrews at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Responds to 
> Authors Guild Statement on the Amazon Kindle 2
>
>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>>
>> CONTACT:
>> Chris Danielsen
>> Director of Public Relations
>> National Federation of the Blind
>> (410) 659-9314, extension 2330
>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell)
>> <mailto:cdanielsen at nfb.org>cdanielsen at nfb.org
>>
>> National Federation of the Blind Responds to Authors Guild Statement 
>> on the Amazon Kindle 2
>>
>> Baltimore, Maryland (February 12, 2009): The National Federation of 
>> the Blind, the largest organization of blind people in the United 
>> States, today responded to a statement put out by the Authors Guild 
>> advising its members to consider negotiating contracts prohibiting 
>> e-books to be read aloud by the new Amazon Kindle 2, which 
>> incorporates text-to-speech technology. The Authors Guild argues that 
>> the reading of a book out loud by a machine is a copyright 
>> infringement unless the copyright holder has specifically granted 
>> permission for the book to be read aloud.
>>
>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind,
>> said: "The National Federation of the Blind supports all technologies 
>> that allow blind people to have better access to the printed word, 
>> including the ability of devices like the Kindle 2 to read commercial 
>> e-books aloud using text-to-speech technology.
>> Although the Authors Guild claims that it supports making books 
>> accessible to the blind, its position on the inclusion of text-to- 
>> speech technology in the Kindle 2 is harmful to blind people. The 
>> Authors Guild says that having a book read aloud by a machine in the 
>> privacy of one's home or vehicle is a copyright infringement.
>> But blind people routinely use readers, either human or machine, to 
>> access books that are not available in alternative formats like 
>> Braille or audio. Up until now, no one has argued that this is 
>> illegal, but now the Authors Guild says that it is. This is 
>> absolutely wrong. The blind and other readers have the right for 
>> books to be presented to us in the format that is most useful to us, 
>> and we are not violating copyright law as long as we use readers, 
>> either human or machine, for private rather than public listening. 
>> The key point is that reading aloud in private is the same whether 
>> done by a person or a machine, and reading aloud in private is never 
>> an infringement of copyright.
>>
>> "Amazon has taken a step in the right direction by including text- 
>> to-speech technology for reading e-books aloud on its new Kindle 2," 
>> Dr. Maurer continued. "We note, however, that the device itself 
>> cannot be used independently by a blind reader because the controls 
>> to download a book and begin reading it aloud are visual and 
>> therefore inaccessible to the blind. We urge Amazon to rectify this 
>> situation as soon as possible in order to make the Kindle 2 a device 
>> that truly can be used both by blind and sighted readers. By doing 
>> so, Amazon will make it possible for blind people to purchase a new 
>> book and begin reading it immediately, just as sighted people do."
>>
>>
>>
>> ###
>>
>>
>>
>> About the National Federation of the Blind
>>
>> With more than 50,000 members, the National Federation of the Blind 
>> is the largest and most influential membership organization of blind 
>> people in the United States. The NFB improves blind people's lives 
>> through advocacy, education, research, technology, and programs 
>> encouraging independence and self-confidence. It is the leading force 
>> in the blindness field today and the voice of the nation's blind. In 
>> January 2004 the NFB opened the National Federation of the Blind 
>> Jernigan Institute, the first research and training center in the 
>> United States for the blind led by the blind.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> blindlaw:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland
>> %40hotmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zu
> felt.ca

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol.
com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3850 (20090213) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com