In 2006 I was entranced with the project. At the time I was working for Abrams Artists Agency in their voice over department, and the work I was hearing from un-paid volunteers was very exciting. I trolled the forums, trying to help people improve the quality of their recordings. I was, even then, bothered by the Public Domain distribution, but their hearts seemed in the right place, and I was eventually motivated to record one of my favorite short stories for the project, The Masque of the Red Death by E.A. Poe.
Now, I'm NO audio book narrator, but I spent a lot of time on that recording. It meant a lot to me personally, and I was really happy with the result. It's even been used in high school english classes across the country. I couldn't have been more flattered.
Now flash forward to 2010.
My recording of Masque is being sold.
On Amazon and eMusic.
I'm credited as the "artist".
I receive NONE of the profit from the distribution of my work.
See, when you release under Public Domain, anyone, at any time, can do ANYTHING they want with your content, in perpetuity (forever). I had conversations with moderators at LV both in 2006, and recently, about their stance on PD distribution. In 2006, the general feeling was that it would be unlikely for anyone to seriously try to collect recordings and sell CD's of the Librovox community's work. Today, however, it's ludicrously easy to create a "label", download the entire LV catalog, and sell it as original work. This is the response I got from a moderator today:
Yes, this [Public Domain Distribution] 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.
This betrays the entire spirit of what the Librivox project stands for. I also find it incredibly irresponsible (and a little insulting) to call a consumer "dumb" if they are looking for audio books and pay for an LV recording. FAR more people know about Amazon then will EVER know about Librivox.
Also the distribution of content under a Creative Commons license would CERTAINLY allow the volunteers at Librivox to police THEIR OWN recordings (if they even want to, they wouldn't be required to), not unlike the way that Flickr allows you to set copyright info for your photos. Distribution under a CC license would've given me the opportunity to serve the "label" with a DMCA take down request (to which Amazon probably would've pulled the audio just to avoid the hassle). It would change NOTHING for the daily operation of LV directly, yet they continue to encourage their own users to submit content under PD, creating an anti-CC culture in the LV forums.
I'm enraged, that my recording could be used in this fashion, but I only have myself to blame for doing work under a Public Domain license. Regardless of what I thought the impact would be in 2006, these products last forever online, and now someone gets to make money off of my donated work.
I used to recommend that people interested in audio book narration check out Librivox, but as it stands today, I must caution ANY voice talent doing work with, or considering recording with LV, not to do any work with them. It's a great project, run by passionate people, so please check out their catalog (hell, sell their catalog), but forever is forever.
You will have no recourse if someone likes your content and sells it.
By the way, here's my recording of Masque of the Red Death, which you can listen to FOR FREE...
***UPDATE***
Twitter pal @SexCpotatoes just sent me this great link on how to protect your content if you feel someone has violated your copyright:
What Do You Do When Someone Steals Your Content
This of course does not apply to Librivox volunteers...
Ok, I'll admit it, I've done something similar. On a lark, and to see how fast I could do it, I picked a finished audiobook from librivox, cleaned up the recordings, then repackaged and republished it as a podiobooks.com book.
ReplyDeleteTook me about 3 days in my spare time, for the record.
Now, podiobooks works on a donation model, so I'm not selling it as much as providing a clear opportunity for voluntary remuneration. I think Podiobooks provides a much better distribution mechanism than librivox, I think it's better know, it has a better reputation, and I think my work to republish this book adds real value. Therefore, the minute I make a dime off this book, I won't feel at all guilty or make an effort to share my ill-gotten pennies with anyone. It's a PD recording of a PD book and I have decided to use it as I like.
But isn't that the difference?
ReplyDeleteYou've created something new. You're as much a part of the creative process regarding this as the editors and the proof listeners were in producing it.
You didn't just cut off the LV tag and repost it as your own.
I'm over my initial anger regarding this, but I'm still very frustrated that LV wont allow narrators to protect their recordings.
I guess that's the other difference I have with them. LV considers all recordings theirs (an audiobook production service), whereas I feel any service like that should be like Flickr (an audiobook hosting service). There are no terms of service presented, no EULA, so there can be no claim to ownership OTHER than the narrator's participation...
Look, between you, me and your dog, if you had released an LV book, I would have snagged that for podiobooks, too. I'm quite sure it would take much less work than the other book I did, and you're nicer to listen to than the reader I selected. Might have made some money on that one.
ReplyDeleteLV is a resource and a club. I tried doing recordings for them once, and I honestly don't know why people play in that sandbox, but it takes all kinds.
And also, I agree with you, the folks who run LV are a little odd.
If you think this stuff should be protected, why not use podiobooks or start, I dunno, LibrivoxCC.org?
LOL! Thanks for the compliment!
ReplyDeleteI tried to start up a resource for teachers called 'The Poe Project', a way to catalog high quality audio/performances of PD content to be made freely available to educators, but in researching the project I found teachers already had quite a bit of stuff to play with.
Still might dredge it up at some point again though...
Response cont'd:
ReplyDeleteSAG: "FAR more people know about Amazon then will EVER know about Librivox."
HM: you are right, though if you look for "free audiobooks" in google, LibriVox pops up and Amazon does not.
SAG: "Also the distribution of content under a Creative Commons license would CERTAINLY allow the volunteers at Librivox to police THEIR OWN recordings (if they even want to, they wouldn't be required to), not unlike the way that Flickr allows you to set copyright info for your photos. Distribution under a CC license would've given me the opportunity to serve the "label" with a DMCA take down request (to which Amazon probably would've pulled the audio just to avoid the hassle)."
HM: You are correct.
SAG: "It would change NOTHING for the daily operation of LV directly,"
HM: Nothing much in the operation, but it would betray the spirit of LibriVox, which is to release everything into the public domain.
SAG: "yet they continue to encourage their own users to submit content under PD, creating an anti-CC culture in the LV forums."
HM: I can't speak for the rest of LV, but I'm certainly not anti-CC, I'm pro-CC. Lessig's CC work inspired the creation of LibriVox. It's just that I think that Public Domain is more radical, more interesting, and ultimately a better tool to help LibriVox achieve its mission (so far).
SAG: "You will have no recourse if someone likes your content and sells it."
HM: correct, and those who don't like that fact shouldn't record for LibriVox - there are plenty of other good ways & places to get audio up on the web. Podiobooks being a great one that we refer many people to.
Response (start - oops I did that in the wrong order, sorry):
ReplyDeleteHi SomeAudioGuy... comments below:
SAG: "In 2006, the general feeling was that it would be unlikely for anyone to seriously try to collect recordings and sell CD's of the Librovox community's work."
HM: That wasn't my feeling. I expected that people would find ways to commercialize parts of LibriVox, but that since the base resource was free, the margins would be made on the added value people would put into the recordings (cleaning, curating, different formats etc). This, by-and-large, is what has happened.
SAG: "Today, however, it's ludicrously easy to create a "label", download the entire LV catalog, and sell it as original work."
HM: It was just as easy in 2006.
SAG: "This is the response I got from a moderator today:
'Yes, this [Public Domain Distribution] 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.'"
HM: that was one response, from one moderator, and certainly I don't agree that a listener would be "dumb" to pay for a LibriVox recording. (I responded to you at lenght in the thread).
SAG: "This betrays the entire spirit of what the Librivox project stands for."
HM: You are incorrect. LibriVox is explicitly public domain, which includes the ability for others to make commercial use of the recordings. Now it might betray the entire spirit of *what you think* LibriVox *should* stand for - which is a legitimate position. But the spirit of LibriVox is specifically public domain, with everything that comes with it.
SAG: " I also find it incredibly irresponsible (and a little insulting) to call a consumer "dumb" if they are looking for audio books and pay for an LV recording."
HM: I agree.
Hi SomeAudioGuy... comments below:(oops I pasted my two comments in the wrong order, sorry)
ReplyDeleteSAG: "In 2006, the general feeling was that it would be unlikely for anyone to seriously try to collect recordings and sell CD's of the Librovox community's work."
HM: That wasn't my feeling. I expected that people would find ways to commercialize parts of LibriVox, but that since the base resource was free, the margins would be made on the added value people would put into the recordings (cleaning, curating, different formats etc). This, by-and-large, is what has happened.
SAG: "Today, however, it's ludicrously easy to create a "label", download the entire LV catalog, and sell it as original work."
HM: It was just as easy in 2006.
SAG: "This is the response I got from a moderator today:
'Yes, this [Public Domain Distribution] 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.'"
HM: that was one response, from one moderator, and certainly I don't agree that a listener would be "dumb" to pay for a LibriVox recording. (I responded to you at lenght in the thread).
SAG: "This betrays the entire spirit of what the Librivox project stands for."
HM: You are incorrect. LibriVox is explicitly public domain, which includes the ability for others to make commercial use of the recordings. Now it might betray the entire spirit of *what you think* LibriVox *should* stand for - which is a legitimate position. But the spirit of LibriVox is specifically public domain, with everything that comes with it.
SAG: " I also find it incredibly irresponsible (and a little insulting) to call a consumer "dumb" if they are looking for audio books and pay for an LV recording."
HM: I agree.
had some problems posting comments - too much text. sorry about the garble.
ReplyDeleteto sum: i totally understand your position, and understand why you don't like LibriVox's commitment to public domain. It's not for everyone, and clearly not for you. But public domain is in our DNA, it's the intellectual/philosophical foundation behind the project. It's radical. But, that's us, that's LibriVox... And if there were a CC version of LibriVox, we'd celebrate and applaud it.
But LibriVox itself isn't likely to change a Fundamental Principle, unless it is clear that it's harming our mission; which does not, on evidence, appear to be the case.
"HM: you are right, though if you look for "free audiobooks" in google, LibriVox pops up and Amazon does not."
ReplyDeleteFair enough, but the term "Free Audiobooks" is searched for EXPONENTIALLY fewer times than "audio books" according to Google Trends (close to zero in fact when compared against each other). Loosely put, the pay sites show up more often, and make more sense to people searching for audio books.
"HM: Nothing much in the operation, but it would betray the spirit of LibriVox, which is to release everything into the public domain."
And why is the "spirit" to release things in the public domain? Why to make SURE they can be freely acquired by a desired audience. By MAKING thinds PD however, it allows people to sell this work, which in itself betrays the very "spirit" of what LV stands for. I recorded that audio with the intent of it being free. Forever. I don't care if it makes $0.89 or $89 million, no one should EVER purchase it, and I should have the ability to police that if I choose to.
"...and ultimately a better tool to help LibriVox achieve its mission (so far)."
In the days when the big fear was that someone might make a CD of these recordings? Sure. But now it's MUCH easier to upload to an MP3 site, and that SHOULD mean a re-examination of policies regarding the protection of the free-ness of this work. "Better" is completely subjective in this case, and what *I* think would be "better" is the same adoption of protections often found in the EULA of open source software. Open source software is "free" but usually includes protections that allow the software authors to protect it from unauthorized distribution.
"...and those who don't like that fact shouldn't record for LibriVox..."
Ah. The "if you don't like it leave" argument. I faced a lot of that IN the LV forums. In any case I completely agree. I've since recommended that NO vo talent do work with them and I've contacted several of my talent agent friends to let THEIR talent know about my experiences.
"But LibriVox itself isn't likely to change a Fundamental Principle, unless it is clear that it's harming our mission; which does not, on evidence, appear to be the case."
ReplyDeleteThe fact that ANY recording has shown up on ANY pay site is ALREADY evidence of PD harming the LV mission.
The amount of work that goes into recording, proofing, and finishing any given LV passage will only improve the recordings over time (many are already fantastic), which will only increase the number of outsiders sniping the audio to profit from the work of others.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to convince Amazon that I'm actually an audio book label...