Read To Your Children, Go To Jail (Not Really) 312
The property struggle of our generation will be fought not in the streets of
Matewan
but in the tiny print in license agreements.
Glassbook
is Adobe's attempt to e-books, but they have a few details yet to iron out. Take Alice's Adventures in Wonderland for example -- check out the
permissions
you acquire when you "purchase" this "book."
Thanks to Art Medlar
and TBTF for this one.
Update:
Curiouser and curiouser. Apparently I misinterpreted the meaning of "this book cannot be read aloud"; Glassbook tech support tells me this refers to its capabilities, not, as labeled, permissions. I apologize for that. But I don't understand why, after this story was posted, they decided to change this. Now if you download Alice, you'll find it can be read aloud.
Incidentally, Adobe is using the text of Alice as transcribed by the awesome Project Gutenberg, whose entire purpose for existence is to bring reading material to as many people as possible. One of the first things I did when I got a laptop was to download a couple dozen of their books. In ASCII format. Say what you like about vi, at least it doesn't tell me to shut up.
Re:I'm not sure that's real &Project Guttenburg GP (Score:2)
Re:Ebooks (Score:2)
My take on it is this -- for just plain pleasure reading, a paper book is far superior. It is easier on the eyes, for one thing -- I think the combination of a light emitting display and the fact that the display is behind a transparent but reflective surface is a point against e-books.
Format is also an issue -- even a small paperback book is larger than any PDA screen. I cannot speak to the rockebook type machines coming out.
On the e-book side, when you need to have content related search capabilities then you are much better off with an electronic format.
Reading of literature is a stream oriented process; reference lookup is a random access oriented process. I'll read the entire data stream of Alice in Wonderlande, but the vast majority of entries in my local restaurant guide I'll never look at. I'm more likely want to find just Chinese restaurantes near the 1500 block of Broadway. I'm more likely to use the Unix manual in electronic form.
Back when I was a kid, I used to read the Unix System III then Sys V manual cover to cover over the course of a year.
Re:Public domain? (Score:2)
Practically speaking it's absolutely assinine.
Good God -- Enough Hyperbole? (Score:2)
---
seumas.com
Re:Support Project Gutenberg ? (Score:5)
About a year and a half ago, I wrote a nice little utility in perl that would parse a Gutenberg etext, and break the chapters out into seperate files, write them into nicely formatted html files, create a table of contents and a framset document so that all you had to do then was double click the index file and you had a nice little 2 frame interface. This could have been used to make nice ebooks using html. I offered this utility to them to provide on their web site for anyone who wanted to download or for them to even use as a cgi so that people could click a title and see it in a nice web interface. They basically told me to piss up a rope. They were not interested in offering this to anyone. I think I still have a copy of the perl scripts laying around. I know I converted a few ebooks and read them in a browser window very conveniently then moved on.
I realize that ASCII text is lowest common denominator, but its awefully nice to be able to view in a browser, when you can adjust your font and size and not drive yourself crazy reading it. If Gutenberg does not want help, screw them.
Now, the best idea would be a coupla drivers that flipped the screen 90 degrees to the right and did the same for the mouse. This way folks who have nice little light laptops could actually hold them like books and read. Hell, I'd never carry my laptop into the john as it is, but if I could sit there and hold the thing like a book and just scroll my finger down the toucpad to scroll the text, then you've got something.
As I am not a programmer, I have no idea what type of trouble this might be, so perhaps the more technically minded of you can enlighten us?
Doesn't bar "psychic" power assistance (Score:3)
When you speak the words of this similar but different literary access source aloud, you are not reading in contradiction to the licence, but rather exercising the explicitly unmentioned right to use "The Product" as a psychic assistance device in full compliance with the contract.
In a bizarre twist, the Supreme Court of Florida has recently ruled that this licence conflicts with the Florida election laws and even if it didn't that the word "cannot" in the last clause of the licence implies that under some cases it "can" be read aloud and that further it would be an abuse of discretion in the case of the presence of psychic powers to inhibit the public's "right to know" which is guaranteed by the Florida and US Constitutions as well as the plain meaning of the text of the licence. Therefore, the licence must be construed, in light of the clearly overriding interest that children not be kept ignorant that the licence in fact confers an affirmative obligation to speak the words of the book aloud while receiving the psychic assistance of the device. Anyone not reading the book aloud will be forced to count ballots in Miami-Dade county.
Scholars expect that the US Supreme Court may reverse the Florida Court. The familiar 5-4 conservative majority is expected to rule that the Florida Court's remedy, which, as applied, would allows some children to hear the story, also prevents children in other counties from witnessing the psychic demonstration and thus violates the equal protection clause. Scholars agree that the fact that remote counties are clearly out of earshot will play heavily in the deliberations.
However most copyright scholars predict the justices will also rule 8-1 that the original licence violates "fair use" under even the most draconian reading of the DMCA, but Justice Ginsberg is expected to argue that the Florida Court's status as the final arbiter of state contract law precludes US Supreme Court action on that grounds.
When asked for comment, George "Dubya" Bush said that it didn't matter to him because he couldn't read anyway, although he seemed interested in having Dick Cheney read the story to him. Al Gore, who seemed on the verge of tears about something else, said that while he strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court, he would accept their ruling, and noted that if Adobe didn't want people reading the book, he had a lockbox for sale. Jesse Jackson on the other hand complained that Alice in Wonderland was a racist text and compared the issue to Selma.
Mistake or scam? (Score:2)
I think that either this story is in error or is an early "April-Fool's Day" joke.
From "Glassbook's" own FAQ (emphasis added):
What happens to the book when I'm done reading it?
Since you own the e-book, once you have read it you can store in the Library that is included with the Glassbook Reader. In the future, users will be able to loan or give their e-books to others using the Glassbook Plus Reader.
Can I print and copy my e-books?
To protect copyrights, publishers establish their own guidelines for how much of their e-books can be printed and/or copied. This means that these permissions will differ from book to book. For example, some of the free books from the Glassbook Bookstore have no restrictions on copying and printing. For example, a publisher might give consumers the ability to print several pages of a cookbook within a set period of time.
Either there's been a serious mix-up at adobe and/or glassbooks (If any of their books are printable, a public domain work copied from Project Gutenberg ought to be!), or someone's pulling our collective legs. The FAQ implies that giving "your copy" of an e-book to someone else is intended to be allowed (presumably, they're trying to find some way of ensuring that your copy disappears when you give it to someone else). I find it hard (though, sadly, not impossible) to imagine Adobe refusing to allow printing from a public domain work...
Has anyone else downloaded and confirmed this? Unfortunately, as is all-to-often the case, only Windows and Mac users can get an 'e-book' reader, so I can't download it myself and check...you can download the book from here [glassbook.com].
If these restrictions are really printed here, it looks like we should be complaining to the publisher ("VolumeOne") more than Glassbooks.
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for Evil.
Re:Over-reaction central (Score:2)
e-crap (Score:2)
If Im wrong - it would be another case of Corporate America saying "you dont have any rights, you have only the rights we want to offer you - even if the terms we set forth violate previously described rights we dont care - we have the means to defend ourselves vigourously - you do not... and your government is on our side - as evidenced by their lack of action at display after display of our arrogance... piss off, see you in court.. heheheheheh "
Think Again (was Re:Someone's pulling a fast one) (Score:2)
I just downloaded the Adobe EBook reader [glassbook.com](windows or Mac). , and then clicked the library button, which takes you to Adobe's eBook collection [glassbook.com]
Voila.
The same picture submitted by Art.
Disturbing. Very Disturbing.
But not suprising.
Re:Insane, what about people with trouble reading? (Score:2)
Can someone Verify that this is real? (Score:2)
Folks I think we have been had.
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
taking from the public domain (Score:2)
Gutenburg has a standard header attached to their documents that places (some) GPL-esque restrictions on their use as long as it has that header -- but you are allowed to remove that header, and are left with a public domain work.
I think that this particular story is, in fact, a scam, but people should be aware that a work being "public domain" isn't like it being copyrighted. You can easily and legally take a public domain work, reformat it a little, and copyright the result.
You don't hold a copyright on the public domain material per se -- the copyright is on your particular expression/presentation of it.
Art galleries do this with photographs of paintings in their collections all the time. Another more "evil" example might be Bill Gates' Corbis and images of Leonardo Da Vinci's notebooks.
Just because something is public domain doesn't mean that you'll be able to get a copy without somebody's copyright restictions on it.
Read to your children (Score:4)
--
*read* the link out loud! (Score:2)
i don't know if that compromises the GPL, because if you are allowed to distribute the document and give a pointer to the source (thats the ASCII gutenberg version) adobe seems to comply with the GPL
where is bruce?
;-)
Re:It is a fake!!! (Score:2)
"
Can I run the Glassbook Reader and a debugger at the same time?
Our security implementation does not allow debugging of any program while the Glassbook Reader is running. However, as long as the Glassbook Reader is not running, debugging is not a problem.
"
Let's hope people don't start distributing documentation in Glassbook format then.
Freedom (Score:3)
Who's to blame? (Score:2)
Who can we contact/complain to about this. Words cannot describe my outrage.
Re:Duh. It's not a restriction on you! (Score:3)
It's a pretty easy inference from those restrictions that Adobe is trying to force anyone interested in getting e-Alice into getting it directly from them, and from no one else.
I'd love to see this taken to court. A healthy dose of mainstream public exposure is what's needed here to begin spreading the memetic antibodies against the trend of eroding fair use rights. I suggest we all stand outside the Adobe headquarters (it's next to the Hilton in downtown San Jose, right?) and read Alice in Wonderland aloud from our Glassbook Readers.
Re:ALso, though.. (Score:2)
I agree. The question here, however, is not whether or not the work is original, it's whether or not you or I have the financial and legal resources to challenge Adobe's implicit assertion that it is (I know I don't).
The big thing with these technological "content protection" measures is that the law doesn't matter much anyway -- you may be well within your legal rights to copy, lend, or loan the e-book version of "Alice in Wonderland", but the software doesn't see it that way. So you can't.
Likewise, SDMI-protected works aren't magically going to become unprotected when they go out of copyright.
Worse, that's probably a moot point, since copyright now lasts something like six to seven times the expected lifetime of e.g. CD media, the bits will have rotted and it'll be long gone (no backup copies, either... thanks SDMI!).
If SDMI and similar protection mechanisms become widespread, I have honestly no idea how contemporary works are going to survive past the next 25-50 years, let alone the next century.
Talk about cultural amnesia...
What if I memorize the entire book ... (Score:3)
Re:This text can not be read aloud (Score:2)
scary thing is, rms kindof predicted this in The Right to Read. Of course no one took him seriously, and it looks like he was on target more than anyone thought.
tagline
Re:Stellar investigative reporting (Score:2)
This is the tendancy in digital media. There are also public domain motion pictures which are being distributed with CSS.
Re:I'm not sure that's real &Project Guttenburg GP (Score:5)
If you want to see my screen shot of the EXACT SAME thing, then check it out [wpi.edu]. Notice I chose the contents page. Or if you don't believe that, try the Title page [wpi.edu]. Yes, the period is missing on the Read Aloud part. But it's still listed there.
That screen shot is real - whether they are serious or not is another question.
Re:Support Project Gutenberg ? (Score:5)
bypassing format (Score:2)
---
"Fdisk format reinstall, doo dah doo dah,
Re:Support Project Gutenberg ? (Score:2)
Don't get mad, get Project Gutenburg (Score:2)
We do have open source readers. (Score:2)
Which is why they will fail.
Compare this to the GPL -vs- whatever arguments. (Score:2)
Well.. that's what Project Gutenberg did with it's books... I wonder if it's the same people who think this is wrong who whine about the GPL?
The fact is, the text of Alice is in the public domain, right? (I mean if it's not, then this argument is useless). If it IS in the public domain, nobody can lay any claim to what you can or cannot do with the material.. period. I seem to recall a ruling where it was ruled that simply slightly changing the format some media is delivered in does not suddenly make it an original work, succeptible to copyright.
Alice is Alice is Alice, no matter who prints it.
Cool (Score:2)
Let's forget Alice. Anyway a child's tale.
Let's think someone does this with the Bible!
ey I'm not a christian but I do respect any feelings people may have to it. And in way or the other, the vast majority of Earth's population has some cultural relation to it. Yeah, you may be a jewish but you have something yours there anyway. You may be a muslim but Isa was the one before the Prophet. You may not be christian, jewish, muslim but somehow have something related with such book. Good or bad, it stilll is a piece of Mankind's History
So if this goes this way... You cannot speak the words of God?
If people go over this... Yeah, UCITA. The New Electronic Inquisition! Bring the electric chair, the modern way to roast all these heretics... The Road Ahead for the new Bible. But remember, you cannot read it aloud...
Re:And inviting friends to listen to CD/play PSX g (Score:2)
Umm, any notion of "property" exists because it's been defined legally as such.
If someone has an apple but is not hungry, then they should have no right denying that apple to someone who is hungry. After all, did the person who picked it ask the tree for permission to take it? "From each according to ability, to each according to need" and all that, you know. Anything that can be manufactured can be manufactured again if needed.
Re:This text can not be read aloud (Score:3)
but i think mozilla did some funky stuff with the submitted field...
oh well... there it is...
tagline
What the... (Score:2)
If this story is true, then someone is getting into serious trouble. Carrol is not here to claim his rights. But a book, after several years becomes automatically public domain and no one has rights to revoke its free distribution. Not even republishers like Adobe. I may buy the book for their work on printing, editing it. They may be woners of pictures or draws (if they are not the original ones). But they don't have a damn right on any piece of its text. Besides, such significative works of Art, and Alice is surely one of them, are protected by international laws and it seems that UN has a big play here. So such claims are a damn HELL! If they are real. I wonder if some lawyers are not already pushing their calculators to hand...
Lend/Give (Score:2)
How fscking ridiculous! Forget about it. I'll download the text.
Re:Stellar investigative reporting (Score:5)
--Dan
ALso, though.. (Score:2)
THe delivery mechanism itself can be patented/copyrighted/whatever, but the text of Alice is public domain, regardless of how it's delvered or what the publshers claim.
Max Headroom (Score:2)
Geez, more and more episodes of that show are turning from fiction into fact.
Duh. It's not a restriction on you! (Score:5)
Talk about letting your imagination run wild. Settle down people. Let's see if adobe comes out with an ebook authoring program before we complain too much. And it looks like an extension of PDF anyway, so we'll likely have open source readers and modifiers soon(which is exactly what adobe wants to prevent...)
-Adam
Bumper sticker of the day:
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired out of a car window.
Re:Any /.er attorneys out there care to commet? (Score:2)
In this case, the "work" is apparently having converted a free Project Gutenberg text into a formatted form. Which is interesting, since it could be argued that the text itself is not their work, and thus the only infringement would be verbally describing the look of the layout or fonts...
Re:Stellar investigative reporting (Score:2)
Re:What if I memorize the entire book ... (Score:3)
But what about Rent and Lease?
And can we read it twice, or is it going to explode like in Inspector Gadget or MI?
Re:I'm not sure that's real &Project Guttenburg GP (Score:2)
The requirement that the text be convertable to ASCII seems to have been violated. One of the pieces of the etext that shall not be removed, altered or modified says:
I have no trouble understanding the wording of "so the Project (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties."
no read aloud allowed... (Score:2)
Cheers.
Re:Let me know when they can enforce that. (Score:2)
Even that is out of the question. The text is public domain now.
Setting aside this particular case and looking at it more generally, "that" is not out of the question, simply because the book is in the public domain.
You seem to be confusing two separate areas of law: copyright and contract law. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is in the public domain. However, you and I could legally sign a binding contract where I agree to give you $10,000, and you agree never to read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland out loud.
The fact that the book is in the public domain does not impair the enforceability of the contract. If, after entering into such a contract, you read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland out loud, you would be in breach of contract. You would not be in violation of copyright law, but you would be in breach of contract.
See the difference?
Now, whether click-through licenses are enforceable contracts at all is a separate, and very fuzzy, issue which I haven't addressed here. But I wanted to make the point about the difference between copyright law and contract law.
Let me know when they can enforce that. (Score:3)
I think I understand what they are saying. I think they just want public readings to be considered against the terms of the agreement. They should have it worded differently though, and specifically stating that is what they are opposing.
Re:VolumeOne Replies... (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Blind? you're kidding... (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:And inviting friends to listen to CD/play PSX g (Score:2)
Re:Read to your children (Score:2)
Re:Thats not legally enforcable.... (Score:2)
//rdj
I just showed this to a Lawyer. (Score:2)
On the other hand if you really want to read to your kids go down to your local used book store and pick up a paper copy for the dollar it would probably cost you for a used copy.
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Re:What the... (Score:2)
I feel ill. And furious. (Score:2)
So, let me get thi sstraight. These miserable shitbags use Project Gutenberg's hard work, do some trivial reformatting, and then threaten anyone who does a cut and fucking paste?!
I want to find these people, kick 'em in the head, and vomit on them. Since that's pretty much how I feel: angry and sick beyond words at their loathsomeness.
Ebooks (Score:4)
Beyond that... isn't it easier to just turn a page? Instead of scrolling the text, just move your eyes? Are we so freakin' lazy we don't even want to move our eyes, just push a button to scroll down a line?
I don't think so (Score:2)
I don't think those permissions mean what you think they mean. I believe that they are instructions to the software, not the user.
And, not to sound like a broken record, but: if you don't like the license, then don't accept it. Just use the material in accordance with the restrictions (and rights) laid out by copyright law. Becoming bound by a EULA is a voluntary and optional act.
---
Insane, what about people with trouble reading? (Score:3)
Sorry, you can't learn to read on this book. Hey! Stop sounding that out!
It IS real (Score:2)
Now my question is, what the hell? How can they restrict use of something they don't own? I guess they own the format, and hence the file itself, but that doesn't let you restrict what people can do with the intellectual content. I don't get it.
Re:I feel ill. And furious. (Score:2)
Would you be willing to kill anyone who tried to stop you from reading this book allowed? Because that's what it might take, when they come after you. If you truly believe (at least in the U.S.A.) that you have a constitutional right to something (and this might not qualify, but serves as a useful example, and damn well should qualify), surely you can legally use deadly force in defending that right, commensurate with the efforts of those who would seek to deny you it.
So, I ask you, would you be willing to kill those who would seek to prevent you from reading to your children?
If not, then the battle is lost before it is begun, for all that it will take is someone using any force to stop you.
No clipboard? No problem (Score:2)
I'm convinced: Copyright laws are Fscked (Score:2)
Yeah, I know, Adobe's trying to protect their labor, and I suppose that of Project Guetenberg and VolumeOne. Still, it speaks volumes about the state of copyrights and intellectual property in our society today.
Stellar investigative reporting (Score:5)
Re:Support Project Gutenberg ? (Score:2)
Re:Ebooks (Score:3)
What kind of sick fucked up kid were you?
Well -- and you've got the picture.
Re:I'm not sure that's real &Project Guttenburg GP (Score:2)
Read aloud??! (Score:4)
"My God, Vanessa's got a smashing body. I bet she shags like a minx. How do I tell them that because of the unfreezing process, I have no inner monologue?"
"I hope I didn't say that out loud just now."
Re:And inviting friends to listen to CD/play PSX g (Score:2)
Disney has made their money off of Mickey, and Pluto, and Goofy, and all the others. They've made their money many times over. Now, how about I be allowed to tell people my story, in the manner in which I choose? And if that involves Mickey Mouse, why should I be prevented from telling my story?
The closest we come to a legal agreement between me and the Disney corporation is the one they accepted by becoming a company in the United States of America, wherein they agreed to abide by the rules of the Constitution which governs this country. This self-same document says that after a limited time, I'm entitled to use those previously copyrighted works to tell my story, to improve the quality of life in this country if I can. Disney is violating this agreement by getting the government of this country to extend copyrights indefinitely, so they can prevent me from doing my part.
Tell me again why I shouldn't have the right to use the character which they created long before my parents were even born, and have made (and will make) money off of through what will probably be my children's lifetimes?
Re:Let me know when they can enforce that. (Score:2)
realize that it is traditional for libraries to have public readings, but I'm not sure exactly how this avoids violating the "public performance" copyright.
It doesn't, it's just that by convention, nobody has been disgustingly anti-social enough to take it to court. That might be out of genuine civic mindedness, fear of public sentiment, or fear that the public might demand a change to the law in general.
Read aloud to yourself? (Score:2)
As a devil's advocate... (Score:3)
The reason copyrights expire are so that other people can benefit exactly as you describe in your example. The corporation didn't create Mickey Mouse, Walt did. So what it boils down to is protection first of the copyright holder, then the consumer. Walt can no longer be protected, so why should you have to pay $100.00 for a Mickey Mouse lamp because the company that made it has to give Walt Disney Co. $50.00 for each lamp?
It also spurs innovation. What has Walt Disney Co. done lately? Shouldn't they be more encouraged to create new material than rely on licensing fees for Mickey Mouse? I'm certainly not saying they don't create new material, and that material should be protected for a reasonable amount of time - just like the original laws stated. The original laws were much more reasonable. Of course, that's just my opinion.
----------
Re:I dont think that's quite the intent... (Score:2)
Well, *maybe* if they actually had the copyright on it. They don't. They didn't write the book. They didn't transcribe the text. They don't own it. Even the most Disney-friendly congressmen have yet to propose that copyright be retroactively extended 135 years.
And even if they did, I don't think they'd be allowed to restrict you from lending the book out. Libraries lend books all the time (and CDs, too!).
It's tough to find (Score:2)
Any /.er attorneys out there care to commet? (Score:2)
Capitalism == Communism? (Score:3)
Now if Capitalism is the opposite of Communism, why are the two starting to sound so damn similar? What is the difference to the individual between the goverment owning everything and a oligarchy of corporations owning everything? Hello???
This bothers me immensely, and I've never been the "The only good Commie is a dead Commie" type. I have friends who think that Capitalism is the best system there is and Communism is a horrible menace to be fought to the very last right-thinking American. I'm starting to think we desperately need a new way of doing things, because it dosen't look like Capitalism is much of an improvement over Communism from where I'm standing.
--Fesh
Re:Stellar investigative reporting (Score:2)
To the extent that the digitizing of a movie is just a mechanical process, it does not add any copyrightable content to the public domain film.
This text can not be read aloud (Score:5)
Voice recognition could be used to check whats on teh screen, and automatically listen to the surrounding sounds, compare the noises to the text on screen, and if there is a 90% match or more, employ a high powered electric shock to you and flash a warning that you are violating the copyright agreement, and that further violations are punishable by death.
If you continue to read aloud, the electric shock will increase in intensity until it resembles the power that GW Bush has been sending through all of those inmates in Texas.
A just punishment for obvious copyright thiefs who are stealiong from the poor artists... THIEF...
tagline
Bogus Technical Restrictions, EULA Fallacies (Score:2)
Having lawfully aquired (purchased) a copyrighted work, you're free to do with it as you please provided you do not infringe on the copyright. Lawful uses include selling your copy, giving it away to an individual, library, or charity, lending it out, reading it aloud to a child or friend, printing copies for your own personal use (perhaps in for use away from the computer or in larger type that's easier to read, or to mark up with highliter and pencil), and copying excerpts to use in critical papers or reviews. Like software end user license agreements that say you can't sell your copy of the program, lend it out, or publish benchmarks or reviews, or a sticker on a book you buy that says "not for resale or library use," the terms attached to the Alice in Wonderland E-Book are just legal masturbation. Assertions that you don't have liberty with the things you buy and own fly in the face of hundreds of years of common practice dating back to times before the United States even existed.
Members of the copyright cartel are trying to take away these physical property rights to lend and sell the original copy as well as the ability to make fair use via technology designed to cripple legally aquired copies of copyrighted works so they can not be fully used. Then they misconstrue laws such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act as prohibiting individuals from working around these crippling technologies. The final outcome of Universal v. Corley and similar cases is going to be very important here, as there is a risk that the copyright cartel may use the courts to wrongly interpret laws in their favor.
The copyright compromise provides for copyright holders a limited period of limited restrictions on others ability to duplicate, peform, and distribute a work in exchange for releasing the work into the public domain at the end of the term. It was not the intent of congress to rearrange the copyright compromise to make the allowed restrictions and the time period unlimited, but this is what members of the copyright cartel are arguing. Members of congress are on the record at the time of lawmaking and have also spoken out on the record and in the press explaining that they did not intend to create unlimited copyright nor a pay-per-use copyright model. The copyright cartel's claims to the contrary are simply false.
Re:This text can not be read aloud (Score:2)
Equal protection and Disabled Rights, anyone?
--Fesh
Everything You Know is .... (Score:2)
I can see the thought police now.... patrolling the trains, the house for violations of their copyright.
I got to send this to jay leno right now!
Here's a stupid little thought. (Score:2)
In this age where new technologies try to bridge certain physical and even psychological handicaps, Adobe certainly isn't putting their good foot forward with this absurd restriction.
What's preventing me from copyrighting my own name and suing anyone who dares say my name aloud without my permission ? This is the kind of stupidity these absurd licenses support and encourage, fueling the imminent popular desire for revolution and retribution against the big corporations. A megacorporation isn't a sentient being, people are sentient beings (for the most part). People should be defining the rules, not "artificial entities".
Re:ALso, though.. (Score:2)
Re:Stellar investigative reporting (Score:5)
Is tons different than:
It sure sounds like they don't want me to read the book aloud to anyone else! They could have made it more clear, and there is only one small paragraph detailing this feature in the online eBook manual. Not entirely a bangup job on Adobe's side either.
Support Project Gutenberg ? (Score:5)
I see 4 programs at freshmeat [freshmeat.net] for Gutenberg front ends. Are any of these widely adopted? This seems like an ideal candidate for XML. A DTD to define structure and XSL for presentation...hmmmmm
they don't have to (Score:2)
They don't have to. If you want to get text out of the e-book in any way but hand-transcribing (or very time-consuming cracking), you're screwed. Adobe doesn't have to bother, the software does it for them. Note that the restrictions placed on the book are more comprehensive than just disabling the software's speech synthesis functionality.
I dont think that's quite the intent... (Score:2)
But I don't think that they can enforce that. It's the same as a CD. You're not supposed to play it for a large group of people, but you can play it for a small group of people. Same with NFL football games or whatever. You can tape them and watch them with a group of friends, but you can't play them for a large audience at like a banquet or something without permission. And they use pretty vague wording for that too...Something about rebroadcast. So, it's likely that you are aloud to read it for a few people, such as a spouse/child/whatever. But not for a group, such as a book reading at the library or whatever. Yes, I know it doesn't spell it out, and they need to do that. But How the hell are they going to enforce that? Are they going to burst in and fine me for reading to a kid? I don't think so. That's way too much bad publicity. THey should just rewrite the damn thing to be more clear. I'm probably talking out of my ass though.
Support Indeed (Score:4)
Whether fortunately or unfortunately, the movers at PG are extremely resistant to the notion of using anything other than plain ASCII text; while they appear somewhat unreasonable about this, they are legitimately looking at a longer term scope. XML happens to be "hot" this year, but it may be something else that is "hotter" a couple years down the road.
Jumping into XML would mandate defining a whole lot more "structuring" information than anyone can necessarily agree on. One person's "not enough structure" may be another's "too much structure," and there may well not be a "happy enough" medium.
By all means, more tools to do automated processing of PG texts would be a Good Thing; transcribing more texts would similarly be a Good Thing. Sending Project Gutenberg $20 wouldn't be the most horrible idea on earth...
This is obviously a freedom of speech violation (Score:3)
All right, for arguments sake, I MIGHT understand if a company said specific corporate secrets (like passwords) cannot be read aloud BY EMPLOYEES as a necessary security precaution (if they have reason to be really paranoid). But CONSUMERS getting BOOKS that the company demanding this DOESN'T HAVE EVEN COPYRIGHT ON? Does this, for example mean, that if I have the book in my right hand and the laptop in the other I can't speak because I might be reading from the laptop? Yes it does. It may also preclude analysis like reading "Once upon a time a princess picked flowers in a meadow" and saying out loud "A long time ago a young girl played in a field."
Corporate Bastards.
-Ben
Someone's pulling a fast one (Score:3)
There is no way this can be correct. I suspect the image has been doctored. Look at all of the restrictions. The lines end with a period except the "Read Aloud" line.
Someone needs to pay more attention when they are doctoring images....
Never attribute to malice... (Score:2)
Apparently there are a bunch of bits in the book format that are toggled on or off to indicate the various permissions. Obviously whoever converted the text simply forgot to set them appropriately.
The response in this forum is really pathetic. If you're ranting here, you're either:
a) Stupid, because you really believe a company would try to assert copyright on a world-renowned piece of literature that has been in the public domain for many, many years, or
b) spiteful, because you KNOW they simply made a mistake, and you want to create a scandal by making a false accusation and hoping there are enough people who fall under a) above to buy it.
Re:Let me know when they can enforce that. (Score:2)
Read this press release [glassbook.com] from Glassbook, where they specifically say "The Glassbook Plus Reader is a full-featured, ebook software that offers a two-page view, text-to-speech capability that pronounces words or enables the text to be read aloud..."
But of course publisher control of fair use must stop, and I hope restricted-use e-books crash and burn in spectacular fashion.
--
Contacting the company? (Score:3)
...phil
Little gasoline, a little flame (Score:2)
Get the same results using copyriht and Slashdot.
Relax folks. I would guess the following is the case. That the reader software needs extra bits to "Read Aloud" the book. Since the book was from Guttengerg it probably does not have these extra bits. It may be that it needs a translation dictionary to fully 'speak' all the words. Further more let's assume its like some of the original pdfs. The ones that - funny - you can't select text in. Gee then you can't copy text out of the file now can you? Perhaps the book needs these copying capabilities to either Lend or Give the book. So poof you can't give it away because their software can't deal with this book.
Before people get further up in arms about the ADA ummm think for a minute. My real book copy of Alice in Wonderland can't read itself to me. Hell even the Gutenberg version can't read itself to you. (Although you can add software to accomplish this.) Are these also violations of the ADA?
Consider that the "Permissions" are "Added Capabilities" not "You Are not Allowed to do this". I will agree that its poorly worded though.
-cpd
I'm not sure that's real &Project Guttenburg GPL (Score:3)
Besides that though, doesn't it seem weird that they can admittedly take the text from project Guttenburg, and then throw on a ridiculous "You May Not Read This Out Loud" agreement to the end. Doesn't Project Guttenberg have some sort of GPL limiting what sort of stupid clauses may be attached to their works? If they don't have one, then maybe they should consider adding one.
Re:Read to your children (Score:3)
--
ADA compliance? (Score:5)
Re:Let me know when they can enforce that. (Score:5)
I think they just want public readings to be considered against the terms of the agreement.
Even that is out of the question. The text is public domain now. They may have claims to the particular 'e-typesetting', but not to the words, or the story as a whole. By reading aloud, the reader is stripping away the typesetting and just conveying the public domain portion.
Even if they publish a work that is still in copyright, no matter what their legal rights might be, it is against all convention to claim that reading aloud to a group or lending (either personally or by a library) is forbidden. It is also against the public good.
Apparently, they also wish to prevent fair-use excerpts of any book (even one where the entire text is fair game). Next they will ban bad reviews, I suppose.
What I really can't wait for is a book intended for children too young to read and their claim that it cannot be read aloud.
The question also comes to mind, does text to speech for the visually impared count as reading aloud?
Methinks I'll just store the text from Gutenberg and skip the copyright hairball. Glassbook? Thanks but no, thanks.
Re:In addition (Score:3)
Re:Let me know when they can enforce that. (Score:4)
Re:Someone's pulling a fast one (Score:4)
Easy Way To Find Out (Score:3)
Grabel's Law