
Top publishers sue Audible for copyright infringement - Vaslo
https://apnews.com/e2078e81c5ca42a9bcde6aeea678b129
======
metalliqaz
Once again big media companies are just making up new rights for themselves.
The idea that the properly licensed spoken word version of a published work
does not intrinsically include the text is laughable. What's next? Kindle
books are infringing on copyright because they reformat the text of the book
into a version that fits the user's screen size and preferred font? I mean why
not?

And I suppose YouTube is infringing on copyrighted videos when it adds
machine-translated CCs, right?

Modern copyright is indistinguishable from rent-seeking.

------
DominikPeters
I don’t understand why publishers are against Audible Captions. That feature
makes audiobooks less pirate-able, and it also won’t lead to more pirating of
ebooks, since it’s better to share a cracked ePub rather than ill-formatted
captions. The only revenue loss I can see is from customers who would
otherwise buy both the Kindle and the Audible version, but that must be a
small fraction.

~~~
socalnate1
My guess is that they just want to be paid more for them.

(i.e. They sold the rights to sell the audiobook alone; if audible wants to
also include a text version of the book, they want more money).

~~~
Jemm
At the expense of accessibility.

~~~
tinus_hn
Audiobooks accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing.

------
wfdctrl
Well, technically it's a derivative work, they have every right to sue.

~~~
votepaunchy
If the translation is performed on device then Audible would not be liable,
considering non-infringing use (see: VCR).

