Is anybody selling our stuff on Amazon?

someaudioguy · Post by **someaudioguy** » July 14th, 2010, 1:03 pm

It's been a LONG time since I've checked in, but just found an Edgar Allan Poe recording I did here up on Amazon's MP3 store:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0026P23NE/ref=cm_cr_rev_prod_title

I DID NOT put it there. I know there's no legal recourse as everything is done Public Domain, just wanted to make sure there wasn't some new Librivox fund raising effort going on before I hit this with a "DO NOT BUY" negative review.

Post by **TriciaG** » July 14th, 2010, 1:10 pm

No official LibriVox selling going on, no.

Selling as an MP3, with no value of a CD or cover added to it? And they say it's copyrighted, too. That's fairly audacious!

someaudioguy · Post by **someaudioguy** » July 14th, 2010, 1:20 pm

I'm actually angry about this. This was never the intent for my recording work through LV. I left a negative review that talked about the hard work that's done here, asking people NOT to buy the MP3, but to check out this site.

Is everyone still sure that Creative Commons licensing isn't a better way to distribute Librivox recordings?

someaudioguy · Post by **someaudioguy** » July 14th, 2010, 1:23 pm

Great.

And it's up on eMusic too...

http://www.emusic.com/album/Juan-Carlos-Bagnell-The-Masque-of-the-Red-Death-originally-published-MP3-Download/11247636.html

Post by **TriciaG** » July 14th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Yes, this is still the better way. Those sellers are not doing anything WRONG, although it's dumb for the buyer to purchase something they can get for free. One of the bigger issues would be enforcement. If we stuck restrictions on the recordings, who would do the policing? With what resources would we go after those infringing on the restrictions?

The vision of LibriVox is to get PD books out in audio form. Protecting the recordings from folks who don't use them as we wish would be a waste of resources, pulling them away from our main focus.

someaudioguy · Post by **someaudioguy** » July 14th, 2010, 3:07 pm

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but this is precisely why I stopped recording for LV in the first place.
I work in commercial voice over (first at a talent agency, now at a casting company). I know how much a voice over contract can be worth. This audio was never intended to be sold commercially. Years ago, the arguments against going Creative Commons were also based on how unlikely it would be that someone would try and market CD's of our work.

The fact that someone else is profiting off of my effort enrages me, especially as thanks to PD we have NO recourse. The distribution of content under Creative Commons would require absolutely NO policing on LV's behalf, but it would empower the individual submitter to police their OWN content. Just like Flickr giving you the ability to set your own copyright on your photographs. If the user has the desire to pursue copyright infringement, so much the better. It changes NOTHING for LV, and gives the community the ability to preserve the integrity of the LV project. To write off anyone who would buy these recordings as "dumb" when FAR more people know about Amazon than LV is incredibly irresponsible.
To think that it's ludicrously easy to re-distribute the hard work of the volunteers in this community, and profit from their time and effort, should incense every member of this forum.

Had I recorded my audio under CC, I could serve these jerks with a DMCA notice:
http://futurequest.net/Services/TOS/DMCA/DMCANotice.php
And Amazon would probably cave just to avoid the issue.

I used to recommend that talent interested in becoming audio book narrators should check this site out, but if audio is to be distributed under PD in perpetuity, then I can no longer recommend prospective talent do work here.

Steampunk · Post by **Steampunk** » July 14th, 2010, 4:15 pm

One of the arguments for not using CC licensing may be that very few will re-use LV recordings for commercial reasons, but it's far from the only one. I wouldn't even say it's a main one.

LibriVox is not here to provide a venue for prospective voice talent. Though we certainly do appreciate any voice talent, professional or amateur, that volunteers.

Librivox's mission is stated thus:

Our objective is to make all books in the public domain available, for free, in audio format on the internet.

Releasing the recordings to the public domain is the simplest way to accomplish that. You say that CC requires no policing, but what action would LV take if someone complained of CC license terms being violated on an LV-hosted file? Any action, even the simple sending of a cease-and-desist letter to an alleged offender--even if sent by a reader--could embroil LV in some sort of legal action, for which there is absolutely no staff and no budget.

PD avoids all that. Hence, PD is the best (i.e. easiest) way for LV to accomplish its mission.

If you wish to reserve rights to your recordings, and I certainly understand why you might want to, I would suggest archive.org or podiobooks.com – both of which provide the option of CC licensing.

As to whether you choose to recommend LV as a site for others because it doesn't fit your needs is, of course, a matter for your conscience.

(disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, personally, and not intended to express official LibriVox policies.)

Jim

Claire · Post by **Claire** » July 14th, 2010, 4:40 pm

Someone who was selling our recordings earlier (can't remember how long ago) on Amazon may have heard enough complaints that he/she stopped of their own accord. Strangely, though, you can still pull up the recordings. They're just listed as 'not available.'

someaudioguy · Post by **someaudioguy** » July 14th, 2010, 5:08 pm

Thanks for the question.
LV would have no obligation to do anything. Flickr has no obligation to protect your photos, but they post your copyright status for others to see. Flickr's only responsibility is if someone posts a photo they didn't own. It would be like if I submitted James Mason's recording of Tell-Tale Heart and claimed it as my own. If I was discovered, LV would have an obligation to remove it. That could still happen today with LV's recordings under PD, so PD doesn't actually protect LV from abuse (it would just come from someone submitting).

LV would have NO OBLIGATION to seek out CC infraction on behalf of it's users. They could even make it implicit in the recordings or forum terms of service.

Releasing under CC Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike (CC-BY-NC-SA), would be JUST as "free" as PD for people properly using the services LV provides, and would provide the ability to send C&D *IF* the person WHO RECORDED THE AUDIO cared enough to do so.

I NEVER said, or implied that LV should be a method of distribution for VO talent. The cavalier attitude towards the distribution of audio (especially those volunteering that MAY do this work for a living) is what I find surprising. People want to produce the best quality they can. Why are the forums FULL of people asking for help and advice? Why do people volunteer to proof audio? A REMARKABLE amount of time and effort goes into the presentation of this audio, and someone completely unrelated gets to make money (ANY amount of money) for doing nothing but uploading it to Amazon, and NO ONE is upset about that?

I was told in 2006 and now today, that people re-selling LV audio are free and allowed to do so, but only because LV has allowed them to.

If the LV objective is to make all books in the PD free, they are failing by allowing others to sell what LV produces, as it's FAR more likely that one casually searching for audio books will find a reseller before they find LV.

someaudioguy · Post by **someaudioguy** » July 14th, 2010, 5:38 pm

Look.
I know I'm kinda messing with a community I haven't participated in in over four years, but I have to say that I'm surprised more people wouldn't be upset about strangers profiting from their hard work and good will. Especially when there's a viable solution, that's not difficult to implement, and would actually help further the LV mission statement of free audio distribution.

I'll leave alone now, because I know I'm kind of picking a fight here, but I just needed people to know that I was upset by this, and was hoping to open a like-dialog with others if they were upset about this too. I can see this isn't the case though, so I'll back off.

Have to go start a "recording label" on Amazon now... Think I might focus on selling audio books...

Post by **annise** » July 14th, 2010, 6:24 pm

It's probably your time - there are not many people on at this time. I don't think anyone is happy about it, But I suppose it is like most things - you can't let the ungodly run your life . Many people get a great deal of pleasure from our output - so I concentrate on them.
If Amazon wants to be immoral if legal well all I can do is never use them - and hope that anyone who does pay for something freely available feels the same way when they find out
Though I suppose they would argue that they are providing the download facility and the storage - and the web page - and they are not a charity.

Also a personal answer

Anne

someaudioguy · Post by **someaudioguy** » July 14th, 2010, 6:57 pm

Hey Anne.
I really appreciate that comment, but boycotting Amazon is not the only recourse you have. If you released your audio under a Creative Commons, Share-alike, non-commercial copyright, you could give away your audio to your heart's content for free, and if anyone tried to re-sell it without your authorization, Amazon would be ON YOUR SIDE in taking it down.

All that would be required is changing the opening audio on your recording from "all librivox recordings are in the public domain" to "all librivox recording are free to distribute, but are protected by a creative commons license to prevent unauthorized re-selling".

catchpenny · Post by **catchpenny** » July 14th, 2010, 10:15 pm

For me personally, I record books because because I enjoy interpreting a written form of media into audio. I think it is also a way to better my inflection, enunciation, and even voice characterizations; sort of an outlet for my inner actor. I am pleased when people enjoy my work. It doesn't trouble me that someone is selling it; If there is a demand for it, someone will sell it, even if you can get it for free. I think more along the lines of caveat emptor. It is the buyer's business to make sure of the items he is considering purchasing. Unethical people will be unethical, whether or not you forbid it.

...I'm surprised more people wouldn't be upset about strangers profiting from their hard work and good will.

That's the trouble with good will; you can't require gratitude.

As to having a CC license instead of PD, I don't really have an opinion. I don't know that much about it. Why exactly are we PD as opposed to CC? Was that even an option when Librivox was started?

lezer · Post by **lezer** » July 14th, 2010, 11:08 pm

There are discussions about this once in a while. Some people have trouble with the concept of PD, and don't like it, and would like to change LV's policy.

Personally, I like making my recordings PD, even though I put a lot of effort into them. I enjoy recording, making a good work, and then giving it away for others to enjoy.

Also, the only reason we can exist is that there are books that are in the PD, so that we are free to record them. I love the fact that we are continuing that.

Here's hugh's take on it: http://hughmcguire.net/2008/03/31/why-public-domain-and-not-creative-commons/ (with a link to a previous discussion thread).

Lucy_k_p · Post by **Lucy_k_p** » July 15th, 2010, 6:26 am

Personally I do consider people who sell just the MP3s, without putting in any work themselves (I think those who put our works on CD provide a useful service - especially since my CD drive packed up and I can't burn any CDs myself), to be rip off merchants. And I do think it's a bit annoying that people who don't know any better might buy these MP3s and waste their money. But in this case they are being ripped off to the tune of 58p, about the price of a creme egg, and I just can't bring myself to a frothing rage over such a small sum of money. It's unlikely to be less than anyone can afford to loose. It's small, petty evil rather than grossly exploitative.

I'm actually more annoyed by book sellers such as Waterstones/Smiths who sell e-books of classics that are available on Gutenberg for free. The formatting might be slightly better for e-book readers, but they charge £2 to £5 a copy and they are DRM protected, so you're only really renting the book rather than buying it. I think this is far more dishonest. I could understand charging a nominal fee, for the formatting and for organising the books so they are easy to find and put in your reader, but £5 is rather steep.

As for how I feel about others profiting from my 'hard work,' *shrug*, I'd be a little flattered that others thought my voice was worth selling/paying for. But I enjoyed making the original recordings. I did this for fun. For me what happens afterwards is sort of irrelevant (although it is nice to find out people enjoy something I worked on). What other people do later doesn't take away any of my enjoyment at the original creation. I can honestly say I don't care if anyone sells the things I've recorded, as long as the buyer is getting a fair deal and won't feel ripped off if they found out they could have had the same (or a similar) thing for free.

Maybe I'm just hugely and naively altruistic, but I like to think of my recordings as a gift I gave to the world, my contribution to preserving and expanding the store of human knowledge. Them being PD is a part of that. And thinking that way, I can't feel upset about anything 'bad' that happens to them, because the good they do just by existing is so overwhelming.

Now a hypothetical situation. Suppose I were to go through the catalogue, selecting what I considered to be the best read and most enjoyable poems from all our poetry collections. Supposed I then designed an attractive cover and burned these poems onto a CD. Suppose I then made a lot of copies and sold the CDs for 50p each and donated the money to my local library. (Giving all credit to LibriVox, along with the information about where to get more recordings for free) I would have put in quite a bit of time and effort and all the money would be going to a good cause. I would also have introduced LV to some people who otherwise may never have discoverd us. As LibriVox now stands, I could do this any time I like.
With the license you propose this would be illegal. Now I don't think I'd actually get caught, and in this case I don't think anyone at LV would object anyway. But (as I am a fairly compulsive rules follower) I'd feel rather uncertain about doing it at all. There's also the possibility the library would refuse to be involved, because they can't break the law under any circumstances, even if I reassured them it was perfectly fine (And why should they take my word for it anyway?).

Incidentally, what counts as profiting from that license's point of view? If I used a small snippet of an LV recording in a larger original work, would I be allowed to sell the original work as long as I attributed the original recording to LV? What if the LV audio was 30 seconds in an hour long work? Or if the LV audio was an hour long, with 5 minutes of new stuff? Where is the line drawn between allowed to profit and can only distribute for free?

I'm now starting to think the whole 'awesome poetry collection charity drive' is a good idea, which gives me yet another reason to curse my broken CD Drive.