Comments (0)

By jdb, September 22, 2009

In light of the currently scuttled Author’s Guild vs. Google settlement, it might be time to examine the motive behind Google’s initiative. Google’s ideology is obvious from both their press releases and their developer resources. Google always encourages people to ‘share’ their content, with or without an open license, especially in conjunction with one of their services. But in the end words don’t paint the picture, you have to examine the nature of the beast. Continue reading 'Author’s Guild vs. Google – What Does Google Want?'»

Comments (0)

By jdb, September 22, 2009

Here’s some interesting developments in the AG vs. Google settlement, which seems to be in Limbo as of now. The DOJ has just weighed in with this:

“A global disposition of the rights to millions of copyrighted works is typically the kind of policy change implemented through legislation, not through a private judicial settlement. If such a significant (and potentially beneficial) policy change is to be made through the mechanism of a class action settlement (as opposed to legislation), the United States respectfully submits that this Court should undertake a particularly searching analysis to ensure that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23″) are met and that the settlement is consistent with copyright law and antitrust law. As presently drafted, the Proposed Settlement does not meet the legal standards this Court must apply.”

Which, as far as I can tell, but maybe I missed something, means that the settlement is illegal. Oops. Continue reading 'The End of The Author’s Guild vs. Google Settlement?'»

Comments (0)

By jdb, August 2, 2009

According to Google’s engineering director, the Google Vision for Ebooks involves ‘cloud computing’, where all of the ebooks you buy will be hosted ‘in the cloud’, which is essentailly a new way of saying you will have remote access to files on Google’s servers and no files will actually be on your client computer or in your possession. So in contrast to Amazon’s scheme, where Amazon sells you an actual file, with Google’s scheme, you just lease access to a file.

Well, given the ongoing sound and fury over Amazon’s remote deletion of the pirated copy of 1984, it will be interesting to see how readily this plan is accepted. Unlike Amazon, Google will have complete control over the files and our access to the files. That sounds fairly Orwellian to me. At least with Amazon’s plan you can back up your data before it can be altered. But, given the professional and ideological ties between Google and the EFF, and Google’s position as a golden boy in the minds of the GNU activists who organized internet action against Amazon, we might never hear anything about it.

Comments (0)

By jdb, May 27, 2009

It was bound to happen sooner or later:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347258,00.asp

Though Ars can be forgiven for relying on an article they didn’t actually read about a study they don’t have access to, I mean, this is Ars we’re talking about and they have a POINT to make, Dvorak is generally smarter than that. Who were the ‘internet users’ participating in the study? Where were they from? What questions were asked? And isn’t asking downloaders how much music they buy kind of like asking high school kids if they use drugs or have sex?

John engages in a little bit of revisionism in his article as well. He holds Napster up as some rennaissance of sharing that was followed by a dark age of non-sharing. Those with memories might recall a thing called Gnutella started around that time, fueled by the militancy of former napsterites. The advent of P2P is when file sharing really started in a big way, and at that time, the music ‘industry’ (one end of which is made of musicians who make music, btw) began to die it’s ignoble death at the hands of voracious consumers.

Also, it’s quite a leap of logic to assume that somehow, if the most popular movies are also the most traded, then downloads drive sales. There is a far more obvious explanation for that data, that people might not want to admit – the most popular movies are the most downloaded because they are the ones that people want. For free. Perhaps the real reason that downloading hasn’t obliterated sales is because a) the process involves installing software from a strange web site and a lot of people are still intimidated by that and b) it is easier to buy the thing on impulse at wal mart and c) if you do that you get to have a shiny disc for your collection and d) mothers everywhere don’t want to get sued for stuff their kids do.

Shame on you, John, you know better than to write what you did. But alas, you have engaged in the standard kneejerk thinking that is more or less par for the course in the anticopyright, ‘I want my MTV for free’ movement. Our international system of copyright, designed to protect the average joe artists and creators of our culture, is seriously broken, and we dont have the time for careless screeds like the one you just tossed off too quickly and got paid for.

Comments (0)

By jdb, April 8, 2009

The Author’s Guild posted a response to the Reading Right’s Coalition’s protest yesterday:

http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/kindle-accessibility.html

Some excerpts, providing some possible solutions to this problem and a reiteration of principles:

“There’s an easy technological fix here: those with certified disabilities could have a Kindle operating system that is subtly modified to permit voice output for all books, overriding any limitations put in place by publishers. This could work in conjunction with existing programs such as Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, Bookshare and the National Library Service.”

“Since step one would help only those with sufficient eyesight to navigate the current Kindle, we encourage Amazon or another e-book device manufacturer to make an e-book device with voice output capability that would be truly blind-accessible, with a Braille keyboard and audible menu commands.”

“Finally, we need to amend existing book contracts to allow voice-output access to others, including those with learning disabilities, that don’t qualify for special treatment under the Chafee Amendment. There’s no getting around the need to amend contracts: for the past 16 years, standard publishing contracts with most major trade publishers do not permit publishers to sell e-books bundled with audio rights. ”

“We will not, however, surrender our members’ economic rights to Amazon or anyone else. The leap to digital has been brutal for print media generally, and the economics of the transition from print to e-books do not look as promising as many assume. Authors can’t afford to start this transition to digital by abandoning rights.

Knowing how difficult the road ahead is for the already fragile economics of authorship, we are particularly troubled at how all this arose, with Amazon attempting to use authors’ audio rights to lengthen its lead in the fledgling e-book industry. We could not allow this rights grab to happen. Audio books are a billion dollar market, the rights for which are packaged separately from — and are far more valuable than — e-book rights.”

Comments (0)

By jdb, April 7, 2009

The Reading Rights Coalition, an organization consisting of advocacy groups for the visually impaired, is protesting today in front the Authors Guild offices – of all places. They feel that Amazon should have gone ahead with the Kindle’s TTS feature, which allowed people to hear an audio reading of a Kindle book. Frankly, it’s naive to blame the AG for Amazon’s decisions – publishers have their own rights and opinions about them as well, and not only that, Amazon owns several audiobook companies. Why are writers the fall guys?

This whole issue seems a little strange, because blind people can’t use the Kindle’s interface without assistance, so how many were using Kindles? Kurzweil’s devices are far superior, specifically designed for people with impaired vision and can read any book in print.

Aside from the existence of perfectly good reading devices that ought to be accessible for the blind, it doesnt seem too far fetched to create a device with braile keys, audio menuing and no display that can play ebooks specially coded for TTS – and not eye-reading. Created for people with disabilites, the device could be covered under medicare and medicaid, the Kindle is not and it is unlikely that it will be – it’s a general purpose device and medicare only covers devices specifically created for the disabled.

Most of the popular arguments we’re hearing against the AG’s position are spurious. The idea that the TTS is a non-issue becuase the TTS feature is still primitive is misleading. A few more generations of voice emulation and it will sound close enough to an audiobook for a lot of people. It’s best to deal with this now rather than later, IP law is like the law of the sea, if you don’t protect your rights you lose them.

Copyright is a thorny issue and the concept of derivative works is especially complex and easy to oversimplify in the light of emerging technologies. A perfect illustration for that – the website for the RRC specifically disallows derivative works. Too bad they don’t want to extend those rights to Authors.

Comments (0)

By jdb, March 25, 2009

I’d like to elaborate on my reply to this post:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php

I think this theory is a little bit wrong. I think the principles sound good on paper, but the economics in several of the examples are off. There are certainly some good ideas for self promotion in there, it’s something that a lot of musicians that want to remain independent think about (myself, I tend to think more along the lines of ‘five good fans in every big city’) it’s just a little optimistic in terms of the number of fans you actually need. I understand that Kelly is trying to help people survive in the type of ‘long tail’ economy he believes we should and do live in, but it is VERY hard for a musician to get even his truest fans to spend a hundred dollars a year.

More like twenty or thirty, really, which is the price of a couple of cd’s or dvd’s. Maybe they’ll come to a show if you can afford to get close to where they are. Those ARE true fans. Casual fans buy one of your cd’s and that’s it – for their entire life. Now, obsessed fans may spend a hundred on merchandise a year, but even the most established indie bands with twenty or forty year careers have a limited number of those. They acquired them through years of patience and dedication and one more thing – a type of financial deal known as ‘the front’. As in, ‘I am an agent or producer or record comapny and I will front you some cash so you can make it to the next show/make the next album/whatever, because I believe you will make my money back and then some’. That’s how the business works. I’m sure there are exceptions that prove the rule, but all of those artists got the insurance payed somehow.

Granted, Kelly does say “But in fact the actual number is not critical, because it cannot be determined except by attempting it” which is not really true. I know what it costs to pay a mortgage and the amount listeners will spend on music is a pretty well studied topic.

Another example Kelly uses, about Lawrence Watt Evans, doesn’t work for me either. Evans has been a working writer for something like thirty years, and has had all that time to build a good following of ‘true fans’. In the meantime, as Kelly points out, he had contracts and promotion from great, big, evil, greedy, bloody, top-down, traditional publishing companies. Now, I don’t know his finances and I don’t want to presume, but after thirty years in the business, just the advance he makes from a book that shows up in a store like B&N or Amazon ought to far outstrip what he made selling each chapter for a hundred bucks. It does sound like a good way to publish stuff your publishers don’t want, though. Publishing is still one of the areas in art where the contracts are actually OK. I couldn’t see a writer at this point wanting that to be his writing income unless he has a nice side job.

The ‘thousand fan’ model seems to say ‘make a thousand friends and they will support you’. Outside the world of parent-funded communes and hereditary nobility, and even there it’s an iffy proposition, I just don’t think this works in the real world.

Kevin Kelly updates his own message with information from a working ‘long tail’ artist:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/04/the_reality_of.php

Other artists chime in, largely pointing out that no one is making a living doing this:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/04/the_case_agains.php

Comments (0)

By jdb, March 19, 2009

As soon as you look away from somthing, it changes. Certainly, a  lot has happened on the Authors Guild / Amazon issue since my last post. That’s what I get for not paying attention!

Amazon Backs Off Text-to-Speech Feature in Kindle

I don’t think Amazon would have done this if there wasn’t a legal reason to do so, though it could merely be an issue of not wanting to worry their suppliers. While the complaint was made by the Authors Guild, I can’t imagine that publishers were particularly happy with Amazon either. The AG had the advantage of having a better profile with the internet public, as opposed to those rather faceless corporate publishers – and at least in Net-land, opinion tends to sway against any kind of protections on content. It’s more difficult to dismiss the concerns of ’Greedy Writers’ than it is ‘Greedy Media Companies’.

An issue that is still hanging wide open has to do with access to books by the blind. Needless to say, the National Federation of the Blind liked the TTS feature, although there are much better devices available that allow a blind person to access any book the want. Their position is that  “The blind and other readers have the right for books to be presented to us in the format that is most useful to us”.  As legally dubious as that may be, the Author’s Guild’s response is pretty dubious and noncommittal as well – ‘We can work it out’. In all actuality that’s something that publishers will have to do and the AG has not much involvement in the matter.

Comments (0)

By jdb, February 21, 2009

Last week, Robert J. Sawyer had some interesting points about the AG’s problem with the Kindle 2′s Text-to-speech feature:

http://sfwriter.com/2009/02/kindle-2-reads-books-aloud.html

http://sfwriter.com/2009/02/but-its-mine.html

http://sfwriter.com/2009/02/kindle-2-authors-guild-and-national.html

He makes a pretty plain and strong case:

“For the last five-plus years, print publishers have been insisting on grabbing ebook rights along with print rights (Tor threw around terms like “non-negotiable” and “deal-breaker,” as apparently mandated by their parent company). But ebook rights are very specifically defined as the right to display text electronically. Amazon recognizes that it can’t allow people to print Kindle-edition books, but it has simply gone ahead and allowed them to be read aloud by the device — turning every ebook into a de facto audio book. ”

Somewhere in the heated discussion Robert pointed out that Amazon had purchased Audible, which seems to add another dimension to the debate and adds weight to the claim that the TTS feature is a rights grab.

Comments (0)

By jdb, February 19, 2009

The Authors Guild is bothered by the new Kindle’s Text to Speech feature, which can read ebooks aloud and could potentially take the place of audiobooks in the future. This would cut into authors royalties in no small way, as right now books and audiobooks are seperate properties and authors get paid for sales of both.

I think that if the kindle has a thing that reads the book back the way a keyboard or a computer can play a MIDI file, then an ‘audible’ e-book is a seperate derivative work just like a MIDI file. The e-book acts as an abstract code instructing the machine what to do, as a MIDI file instructs a musical instrument what to do. It certainly is functioning as a discrete work, seperate from a computer file displaying text on screen. The difference, and I guess the legal conundrum, is that the two functions use the same source code – the ebook itself.

Maybe this is a little unprecedented – but maybe it’s not too different than the music industry, where you have the right to listen to a recording but public performance of that recording requires further license.