Audible forced to defend the legal difference between audiobook transcripts and "books"


Today, in the exciting world of niche lawmaking publishing giant turf wars: Amazon-owned Audible is being sued by a number of major publishers over its decision to include caption services with some sections of the audiobook library. And frankly, we love this kind of shit, because that's the kind of thing that at first seems like a good idea about slam-dunk – the transcripts are designed to help struggling readers follow a few words at a time, complete with the ability to pause and get a definition of any word they have trouble with – but then someone goes on to point out that we already have transcripts of audiobooks, and that they are called, eh, "books."
Per THR lawsuit comes with virtually all major publishers in the business – Chronicle Books, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publisher, Macmillan Publishing Group, Penguin Random House, Scholastic and Simon & Schuster – who are pissed off that they were not & # 39; I've even consulted on the decision, claiming that Audible not only distributes the text of copyrighted material without its rights, but that it distributes crappy versions of it, to boot. (The transcripts are generated using machine-based speech-to-text techniques; Audible has reportedly admitted that their technology is fucking up to 6 percent of words.)
