[free-sklyarov] Right or feature?

[Huaiyu Zhu]

Is read-aloud a right or a feature?

There are two types of "intellectual properties" involved - the
copyright of the book (authorship), and the copyright of the software
that converts text to speech (capability).

If it refers to the capability, it is a feature.  Which means if I buy
the ebook-reader with that feature, I can use it to read any ebook I
own.  Or if I just buy a per seat or limited time license, I could use
it on any ebook I own within that limit.  Furthermore, if I do not buy
it there, I could buy from someone else, or even write my own read-aloud
program.  In any case it is none of the publisher's business.

On the other hand, if it refers to the authorship, it is a right.  If
the copyright holder (mostly the publisher) says no, then I cannot do it
even if I have bought or developed the capability to do it.  That is a
right to be granted or denied by the copyright holder.  And the
publisher can do it on a per book or even per copy basis.

Which one does the "not allowed to be read aloud" clause mean in the
Alice ebook?  It does not matter, due to the ugliness of DMCA:

Traditionally, and morally justifiably, the publisher could only control
"read aloud" as a feature.  However, under the DMCA, if the ebook is
copy-restricted, the only way I can exercise the right is by using the
officially sold feature.  Any third-party text-to-speech program has to
circumvent the restriction, thereby being illegal under DMCA.

In short, the DMCA stealthily turns the table around: traditionally it
was a right of the consumer and a feature from the producer, now it
becomes a right of the producer and only a feature sold to the consumer.

So I think this topic will not be a PR disaster if it can be clarified
to the public.  It is in fact one of the key problems with the DMCA.


<digression 1> 
There are some off-topic but understandable comments on this list in the
past few days.  I want to make one comment about Tuesday's tragic events
that hopefully is also pertinent to this list.

When a group of people feel being victimized, they often have the
tendency to justify victimizing of any one connected to, supportive
of, approving of, or in any other way associated with the perceived
villains.  

This is what the terrorists did, what some proposed revenge would do,
and, although on a different scale of magnitude but fundamentally of the
same kind, what the DMCA does.

We live in civilized societies.  Part of being civilized is the ability
to use ration to resist such (quite natural) basic instincts.  Let us
not be driven back to stone age by the terrorists.
</digression 1>

<digression 2>
I think it is appropriate for those pro-libertarian or anti-libertarian
people to voice their opinion on Sklyarov case or DMCA here, or even on
the other side's standing on these issues.  But comments on the other
side on other topics is, IMHO, quite off-topic here.  Personal attacks
are very much inappropriate here.  They will do nothing to further the
argument of the speaker, either.
</digression 2>


Huaiyu Zhu