Hard News: The Casino
578 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
The quality difference in the voicing seems large, but then look how many folk regard MP3 as acceptable quality for music?
Many many many. But not many will accept a tone-deaf robot singing their favorite rock song, no matter how high the fidelity.
Ben Wilson - Rob Stowell back on page 13 put it best -it is potemtially already possible to convert a TTS function to a downloadable good-quality audio file...and new developements are in the offing-
bang go audio-books if they arnt ringfenced (which they still are...)
I think Rob was suggesting the other way around. Speech to text, ripped from the text to speech. Seems like the hard way to me, though, no easier than the more usual way of ripping text - scanning + text recognition.
But taking your interpretation, that TTS can make a good-quality audio file, I can only say that the potentially possible has still not been actually realized, and may be a very long way off.
If it isn't, then yes, the audio book royalties might suffer. Then again, they might not. People who like audio books, may actually like them as works of art in themselves. I certainly do, on the few that I've listened to, it was not enough to have even a human drone reading the story. You want a really talented vocalist. If you can continue to sew up the right to profit from a human making an audio book, then you may lose next to nothing.
-
The machine can never understand what it reads, and I think that's insurmountable until such a time as machines have feelings.
I agree - but some people would nonetheless regard the value for money proposition of free but crappy as acceptable quality. Others prefer vinyl..
-
not many will accept a tone-deaf robot singing their favorite rock song
Actually, I agree with that too. Someone should tell Kanye.
-
be much easier to cut the spine off a hardcopy and run it through a scanner.
scan to txt could work but scanning a 500 page book wouldn't be easier unless they've got automated scanning sorted.
-
scan to txt could work but scanning a 500 page book wouldn't be easier unless they've got automated scanning sorted.
This is long solved, including the OCR. Manually, about a day. Automated, 2-3 hours, tops.
-
scan to txt could work but scanning a 500 page book wouldn't be easier unless they've got automated scanning sorted.
It's how it's usually done for a reason. Like Tim says, you cut the spine off, feed it into a sheet-feed scanner, and there's your scan. Then you run text recognition over it, and bingo, there's your high quality copy. I had to do it myself once when a girlfriend lost the source file to a large essay which she still had hard-copy of - I was amazed how accurate it was, and that was the mid 90s.
I'm not saying that you couldn't convert a file in the way Rob says, but I'm not sold on it being any easier, because it's already really, really easy. The real barrier, so far as I can see, to wholesale ripping to e-books of the printed word is that people don't like to read e-books. It's not very comfortable. They'd rather read a printout, and when it comes to that, they might as well have the actual printout that is legitimate, in a nice bound finished glossy covered actual book.
This is very different to ripped music, because people have liked listening to music coming out of a machine ever since it was possible. That is because recorded music is a performance not a composition. The composition has a much more limited audience, of people who can read music. It's altogether quite a different thing. It may even be much better to those who are trained in music, in the way that a book can be better than a film.
-
And, in case anyone is wondering how I know that, I had to do it for a friend whose hard drive crashed and he lost all the electronic copies of his thesis (which was a substantial piece of work) and only had a bound copy left. So, it was the only way to get a version that he could revise for general publication.
I've also done it with reports by my father written with typewriters, back in the day (I don't think there's an OCR system on the planet that could have dealt with his handwriting).
It's also how some of the pirate versions of Harry Potter and others reached the net in such a short time after publication. I didn't do those ones ;-)
-
Bugger, Ben beat me
-
So Ben was the Potter pirate? :)
-
No, I was the sucker who actually bought and read it hardback. But I like that, since it's finished the collection. I wouldn't mind having a digital copy for my PDA, but I'm in no rush to read those books again.
-
Apropos BenWilson:
"is that people dont like to read ebooks."
O so yes.
And much younger people than me so dont like to read *books* on 'phones. Yep, they're glued to the 'phones BUT - I have family members in the 12-21 rangle who are omnivorrous readers of books, and dont ever buy any kind of ebook (obviously the ibook/Amazon stuff isnt available here yet) whatsoever *because* they dont give a bookreading experience.
-
much younger people than me so dont like to read *books* on 'phones
Oddly enough- not in Japan. This is a curious twist: Cellphone novels recently held four of the top five positions on Japan's best-seller list. It's an interesting read.
-
Ooops- wrong URL entirely, ho hum, how circularly endless. Here: Cellphone novels
-
Note, Rob, those 'novels' are all free-to-air/e-dom by amateurs
(that news site has come up here ebfore!)
-
Iit struck me a few days ago for authors who have already signed a publishing deal, that wising-up by getting favourable terms for subsidiary rights isn't going to make much, or even a jot of difference.
If the back catalog contains your gold, then it's to your benefit to protect a regime that protects your means of deriving an income.
Andrew Dubber's comments regarding producing works specifically for the internet come to mind.
Format shifting seems to me fairly irrelevant if the work is already available in the format that consumer wants, which is why I'm not seeing the T2S applications as a big deal. Is the price elasticity of demand so sensitive to price and insensitive to quality that a T2S version of a work is considered a reasonable threat? (and I get that T2S minimizes cost)
Of course the big fear is that those works specifically for the internet are so easily distributed via the internet that the commercial value of those works are damaged
What does "the commercial value of those works are damaged" really mean? Does it mean impossible to derive an income, or impossible to earn a living, or is simply it that the income derived is less than the work might have been worth in the mythical good ol' days?
I located a shorter (10 min) recording of the Cory Doctorow lecture on Technology & Freedom and I think it effective in exploring some of the philosophy of restriction (it even talks about gambling, so particularly relevant to this thread.)
The longer (86 min) version of Cory's lecture is well worth taking in, particularly the tail end as the context broadens out.
-
What does "the commercial value of those works are damaged" really mean? Does it mean impossible to derive an income, or impossible to earn a living, or is simply it that the income derived is less than the work might have been worth in the mythical good ol' days?
The same question was striking me too. Are e-books just a new thing, a whole new market, rather than a piece of the old market? Seems that way to me. When I've used them, it's been almost exclusively for public domain. Stuff taken from Project Gutenberg, lots of classics.
These are books which I certainly would not buy, but can't see anything wrong with having a few thousand of on my PDA for any time I'm stuck somewhere and really bored, like waiting rooms, on public transport, etc. This has created something which simply did not exist before, the pocket library of old classics.
I've read a few dozen works that way. Others are just there for reference, things I've already read, like the complete works of Plato, and my other favorite philosophers. Some of these ones are actually not out of copyright and have been 'pilfered' although I do own the print versions (for which the authors did not receive a cent either, since I mostly bought them second-hand).
I'm think that Bertrand Russell would actually approve of me carrying his works with me everywhere.
I doubt that living authors would approve if they weren't proper e-books, though. Fair enough, I guess. For those works, I'm saddled with carrying printouts everywhere, and having massive shelves of them taking up space all around my house and in my garage in boxes, and occasionally losing them or having them stolen. That's the price of copyright, that convenience to readers is a massively secondary concern.
-
Yep, BenWilson, I have a similar library of classics (the actual Greek and Roman ones) plus the stuff of English literature for just that reason and for searchability when I'm trying to nail down a quote. That's where it's most handy, actually.
I also bought the hardback Potters, although a kind soul had sent me an electronic copy as soon as they downloaded it. It wasn't how I wanted to read it so I didn't use it, but I did read the complete Sherlock Holmes on my PDA over a period of months. I have a few ebooks (usually non-fiction) that I bought specifically for the search factor and many more downloaded from Gutenberg. It's not the same as a physical book but it is a lot easier to carry and use.
What is a book? Is it the chunk of wood pulp or is it the words on the page. As readers and authors we all have to address this, because the world is not standing still because we might cry "foul".
-
scan to txt could work but scanning a 500 page book wouldn't be easier unless they've got automated scanning sorted.
This is long solved, including the OCR. Manually, about a day. Automated, 2-3 hours, tops.
And in that time you could have been working and earned more than enough to buy the book so what is the point? It seems to me that there are some in creative and publishing circles that spend far too much time bemoaning the fact that it is technically possible that someone could get access to their work without paying them for it. The fact is that the same technology enables them to create vast numbers of copies of their work that they do get payed for.
لا يمكنك أن يكون لديك كعكة وأكله
Which, roughly translated from the Arabic means.
You can not have your cake and eat it.(I just wanted to see if that worked, cool ;-) )
-
The newer distribution models seem to rely on profiting from a smaller slice of a much larger cake.
-
And yes the Arabic was indeed cool. :)
-
(and my 10-year-old son will tell you that i have an aesthetic grudge against the AK one: "dad, is that really the world's tallest unpainted concrete sewer pipe? you're just making that up, aren't you?)
I'm no expert, but I always assumed that all sewer pipes were unpainted.
-
Yes. "My distribution model is bigger than yours" said the Interwebist to the Dinasoaur
-
I'm no expert, but I always assumed that all sewer pipes were unpainted.
All except the painted ones, perhaps.
-
Dinosaur, damn it.
-
It's more that yes 99% of your "product" will be nicked online, but the other 1% is still more profitable to the creator than the 10% cut of the 90% of sales minus shrinkage under the old model (eg: bookstores, record shops, cinemas).
I acknowledge some consequent concerns about the effect of that taken-without-payment 99% on the long tail, but then the remix cycles are so fast that profiting from derivative works seems a better place to direct effort than trying to hold back the sea.
I want to see models developed that assure creators of a small and fair and reliable cut all the way along the chain. Surely New Zealand can be part of that? Section 92 is embarrassing.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.