Audioliterature and Audible

Comments about LibriVox? Suggestions to improve things? News?
TheBuriedBook
Posts: 23
Joined: February 16th, 2014, 10:07 pm

Post by TheBuriedBook » October 2nd, 2018, 2:31 pm

I do believe LibriVox is in the wrong forcing content creators (at least single-narrator works) to use Public Domain. Like at Wikipedia, authors have a range of license options to choose from, including PD and some CC. The attitude of LV has been PD or leave - end of discussion. I'm afraid the identity theft will create a demand for a new kind of LibriVox that isn't mandatory PD, such as cc-BY, to be a little more compassionate towards the people doing the work. Otherwise it puts a damper on creating anything at all.

tovarisch
Posts: 2738
Joined: February 24th, 2013, 7:14 am
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Post by tovarisch » October 2nd, 2018, 3:03 pm

TheBuriedBook wrote:
October 2nd, 2018, 2:31 pm
I'm afraid the identity theft will create a demand for a new kind of LibriVox
Could you please elaborate on how that might be? I fail to see the connection between the identity theft and our license format, and how introduction of a different kind of license would prevent the crime.
tovarisch
  • reality prompts me to scale down my reading, sorry to say
    to PLers: do correct my pronunciation please

Availle
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 16670
Joined: August 1st, 2009, 11:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Availle » October 2nd, 2018, 4:23 pm

I don't understand that either.
After all, you can already make and upload recordings under *whatever non-PD* licence to archive. There is no need to go through our framework and processes if you do not approve of them.

Also, to give another example: gutenberg.org - all their books are PD - has been around for a long time. They are "the" producer of PD books - and I am not aware of anyone doing the same and on their scale for CC04 licences, say. And I don't see how all the people at Distributed Proofreaders (who actually make the books) are somehow not "valued" just because they don't get a "better" licence.


There will always be people taking advantage of the goodness of others, and I think we all have done it to certain extents. That's life. You don't have to like that, and it is your prerogative to withhold your "goodness" to to speak, but you will not be able to stop those people.

In the end, we at LV do our thing. And we are telling everyone upfront what that thing is that we're doing. There is no problem for us.
You don't have to like this, you don't have to agree with this, that's fine.

Honestly (and I know that this will sound rude): Instead of trying to solve a problem LV doesn't have, maybe put your energy towards creating that "copyleft" LibriVox somewhere. If there are that many people who are put off by our PD licence, and they'll start reading for you instead, you have made the world better: More free audiobooks for everyone! :D
Cheers,
Ava.

--
AvailleAudio.com

a.r.dobbs
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 23rd, 2006, 1:04 am
Location: Boston

Post by a.r.dobbs » October 2nd, 2018, 5:25 pm

Availle, imo you've eloquently expressed a widely shared attitude at LV -- your message was gentle, even-handed, and straight-talking. It's a little bit of embodiment of the LV mantra: be kind, while clearly stating our stubborn generosity. I just want to chirp my agreement with all you've said and the way you've said it.
Anita

Monaxi
Posts: 830
Joined: April 30th, 2013, 7:34 pm

Post by Monaxi » October 2nd, 2018, 5:31 pm

Thank you, Availle! You explained the situation perfectly!
Peace be with you,
Sister

TheBuriedBook
Posts: 23
Joined: February 16th, 2014, 10:07 pm

Post by TheBuriedBook » October 2nd, 2018, 10:10 pm

> how introduction of a different kind of license would prevent the crime

If it was CC-BY (Attribution) it would be a crime. They couldn't upload to Audible under a different name it would be a copyright violation.

TheBuriedBook
Posts: 23
Joined: February 16th, 2014, 10:07 pm

Post by TheBuriedBook » October 2nd, 2018, 10:20 pm

> PG are "the" producer of PD books

Gutenberg gets most of their books from DPR, who get most of their books from Internet Archive scans, who hires a company in Hong Kong (Chinese mainland labor) to scan about 1000 books every day (low estimate). IA has over 18 million texts. Gutenberg has 57,000. Granted for texts in e-text (plain text, epub, html) there is no peer to Gutenberg, but for PDF format IA is king surpassing even Google Books (which is a fairly dead project now anyway).

annise
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 31689
Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 3:55 am
Location: Melbourne,Australia

Post by annise » October 3rd, 2018, 12:59 am

So? In what way is this relevant? Many of the Archive things are never the less scanned and uploaded by volunteers, I don't remember anyone saying they all were - My gut feeling is that a high percentage of the books we use are not scanned in China but I don't really know - And the ones from libraries are probably scanned by paid people. Not to mention the scans that PG uploads at Archive. And the people at Archive are paid, it's a registered charity. Go establish NonLibriVox with our blessing, find yourself people prepared to do the backroom work and provide what Archive is prepared to let us utilise at no cost or find another way of funding it, then come and tell us about it, I'd love to set up something based on Australian copyright law.

Anne

TriciaG
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 42889
Joined: June 15th, 2008, 10:30 pm
Location: Toronto, ON (but Minnesotan to age 32)

Post by TriciaG » October 3rd, 2018, 6:13 am

At this point, I think we're arguing in circles. The conclusion is that LibriVox isn't going to change the license under which it releases audios. Readers will have to keep that in mind when recording for LV. And if someone wants to start a LV clone with a more strict license, they're welcome to do so.
I do believe LibriVox is in the wrong forcing content creators (at least single-narrator works) to use Public Domain. Like at Wikipedia, authors have a range of license options to choose from, including PD and some CC. The attitude of LV has been PD or leave - end of discussion. I'm afraid the identity theft will create a demand for a new kind of LibriVox that isn't mandatory PD, such as cc-BY, to be a little more compassionate towards the people doing the work. Otherwise it puts a damper on creating anything at all.
You believe it's wrong. We don't. Caveat emptor, or whatever the reader equivalent would be. :) If such a demand grows, then a new kind of LibriVox will be created to meet that demand. We sympathize with readers who dislike the PD designation, but we aren't forcing them to record for us. There's no slave labor here. :)
Away from LibriVox Mon, Oct 7 through Tues, Oct 15.

TheBuriedBook
Posts: 23
Joined: February 16th, 2014, 10:07 pm

Post by TheBuriedBook » October 3rd, 2018, 8:21 am

> Go establish NonLibriVox with our blessing

Thank you for your blessing but you are misunderstanding my intentions :) I'm observing what very well might happen due to the contradictions inherit in sentiments seen in this thread about narrjacking, and LVs PD license.

> You believe it's wrong. We don't.

Evidently most people in this thread are not happy about narrjacking - but that is what PD means it's perfectly legal. It's easily solvable with CC-BY which simply says "do whatever you want with it, just attribute who created it originally". It's not complicated or restrictive and would have no effect on anyone but the narrjackers. It's exactly why CC-BY was created to avoid things like this. Until then you'll have to reconcile that you accept narrjacking as the price of maintaining PD (CC0). You could approach it with Audible on ethical grounds, that might work occasionally (though I think Audible is incentivized to capture LV ear-time revenue), and there are other ways this problem will show up.

tovarisch
Posts: 2738
Joined: February 24th, 2013, 7:14 am
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Post by tovarisch » October 3rd, 2018, 9:14 am

TheBuriedBook wrote:
October 3rd, 2018, 8:21 am
> You believe it's wrong. We don't.

Evidently most people in this thread are not happy about narrjacking - but that is what PD means it's perfectly legal. It's easily solvable with CC-BY which simply says "do whatever you want with it, just attribute who created it originally". It's not complicated or restrictive and would have no effect on anyone but the narrjackers. It's exactly why CC-BY was created to avoid things like this. Until then you'll have to reconcile that you accept narrjacking as the price of maintaining PD (CC0). You could approach it with Audible on ethical grounds, that might work occasionally (though I think Audible is incentivized to capture LV ear-time revenue), and there are other ways this problem will show up.
And most people in this thread are welcome to join your new CC-BY NonLibriVox (whenever you get it going).

Tricia's "we" refers to the rest of us. And for the rest of us who accept the danger of "narrjacking": we're are aware of it, and obviously it is not a "problem". Can you not get it? :?

I wonder how many times and in how many different forms does this need to be repeated? :roll:
tovarisch
  • reality prompts me to scale down my reading, sorry to say
    to PLers: do correct my pronunciation please

TriciaG
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 42889
Joined: June 15th, 2008, 10:30 pm
Location: Toronto, ON (but Minnesotan to age 32)

Post by TriciaG » October 3rd, 2018, 9:41 am

But to be fair, Tovarisch, there are readers who have expressed dismay at their recordings being on Audible, LV intros snipped out and tone changed and credited to fake names. So "the rest of us" isn't unanimous. "Can you not get it?" is going too far, IMHO. Just because one doesn't like another poster's reiterated viewpoint doesn't mean the poster is dense.
Away from LibriVox Mon, Oct 7 through Tues, Oct 15.

tovarisch
Posts: 2738
Joined: February 24th, 2013, 7:14 am
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Post by tovarisch » October 3rd, 2018, 10:08 am

Tricia,

Yes, there are others in LV that don't like the situation, no doubt. So? We are not necessarily unanimous in our accepting the world as it is, and undoubtedly there are different ways to change it. However, we (the rest of us) are (to my understanding) unanimous in that we are going to keep doing what we have been doing, without changing the underlying principles. Is that not so?

And, "going too far"? I have no particular feeling about the viewpoint/opinion expressed, everybody is entitled. I simply don't see the need in repeating those (different) points of view without adding any new evidence or notion aimed at proving the point superior. It's a "yes, it is -- no, it isn't" kind of "discussion", and can we not stop this already? Or do you see some kind of value that is supposed to eventually materialize as the result?
tovarisch
  • reality prompts me to scale down my reading, sorry to say
    to PLers: do correct my pronunciation please

TheBuriedBook
Posts: 23
Joined: February 16th, 2014, 10:07 pm

Post by TheBuriedBook » October 3rd, 2018, 11:04 am

> the underlying principles

I take it these:

https://librivox.org/pages/about-librivox/

Has there ever been a posting as to why PD was chosen and CC excluded? I would be interested in learning more about why the principle exists, the philosophy behind it.

BTW thanks TriciaG for the defense and recognition of the contradiction.

TriciaG
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 42889
Joined: June 15th, 2008, 10:30 pm
Location: Toronto, ON (but Minnesotan to age 32)

Post by TriciaG » October 3rd, 2018, 11:28 am

TheBuriedBook wrote:
October 3rd, 2018, 11:04 am
> the underlying principles

I take it these:

https://librivox.org/pages/about-librivox/

Has there ever been a posting as to why PD was chosen and CC excluded? I would be interested in learning more about why the principle exists, the philosophy behind it.
I don't think it's explicitly on the site, but this summer Hugh (the founder) posted a couple posts in another debate thread about commercial recordings and LV. In them he linked to a page that has a link to an interview discussing LV's beginnings. It might talk about why we went with PD instead of a CC license; I'm not sure since I haven't listened to it. (The transcript link goes to the wrong page.) His posts begin here: viewtopic.php?p=1490522#p1490522

EDIT: I listened to the interview. At about the 8 minute mark Hugh says he wanted to release the audios with no restrictions, licenses, royalties, etc. - so he said that in the very beginning, but didn't explain why he went with that vs. a CC license. CC is also mentioned around the 11:30 mark. Note that some of the information is obsolete. This was recorded in LV's very infancy.
Away from LibriVox Mon, Oct 7 through Tues, Oct 15.

Post Reply