Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:17PM EST
See Comments (1034)
It was hardly the most interesting or earth-shaking part of Jeff Bezos's introduction of the Kindle 2 on Monday, but one small, experimental feature in the device is already causing a minor uproar. Specifically: The Kindle 2's text-to-speech function, which will use a computerized voice to read aloud anything displayed on the device's screen. The problem? The Authors Guild says that that's against the law.
The challenge revolves around audiobooks, which are treated separately from printed material from a copyright standpoint. A retailer can't record a copy of a book on a CD and sell it or bundle it along with a novel without paying a separate fee, just as buying a copy of an audiobook doesn't entitle you to a free copy of the printed version.
Amazon -- and many legal observers -- vehemently question this stance, noting that an automated text-to-speech system isn't the same as a pre-recorded audio book. Some have even compared computerized speech systems like these to reading a children's storybook aloud at bedtime. Since the Kindle doesn't store a copy of the book on the device in an audio format, but rather converts from text on the fly, it seems likely that Amazon is on the right side of the law on this one.
Still, we're in a legal gray area that hasn't really been tested in court, and if our legal history has taught us anything, it's that judges can sway either way on these issues. If the Kindle 2's audio quality is good enough, it could eat substantially into the sales of audiobooks, and that alone tends to be a persuasive argument in the courtroom.
The Authors Guild doesn't seem ready to go to court yet, however. In a memo the organization sent to its membership this morning it said publishers and authors should "consider asking Amazon to disable the audio function on e-books it licenses." Get ready for a long road ahead on this one.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
Audiobooks are typically either read, or more precisely, narrated by the author or a relatively well known actor. Text-to-speech functionality is no competition for this type of delivery. This is an example of the ridiculous extent lawyers can create nonissues from relatively benign technology.
Text to speech is pretty painful to listen to, but I'm sure audio books will suffer...So what, new technologies take older techs out of business - just ask the typewriter makers...
Audio books are for the visually impaired Kurzweil is primarliy used for people with Dyslexia and other types of LD. hence the highlighted texts as it reads along. that is for the first post. Jaws is used for the visually impaired as well.
The greatest problem as I see it is that authors are already getting squeezed out of the book selling market to begin with. Publishers are making even more money, which isn't shared fairly with authors, from electronic books, whether they stay on the screen or are translated to computerized voice. heck why not just give our books to the publishers and Amazon and get it over with. Signed, An author who only made $504 in most recent royalties check.
Have you ever heard computerized text-to-speech? It'll never replaced professionally read audio books. That is unless you prefer a robotic like voice with weird inflections and pronunciations.
Sorry, publishers are wrong on this one. Don't fight new tech, embrace it. You will sell more books! This type of technology will add sales. Just look at the recording industry to see how NOT to embrace technology while killing sales at the same time. BTW, there are several authors that support this technology - see Neil Gaiman.
Audio books utilize actors who change voices to represent the differenct characters. I cannot imagine a computer-voice version of a book to be worth listening to - at least not at this point in time. I choose audio books for enjoyable listening.
i have been farting progressively louder. Getting worried.
Maybe I am missing something here, but wouldn't you have to purchase a printed copy of the book in electronic form to be able to use a text to speech function? If I have purchased the electronic version of the book, then why would I not be within my rights to read it with the audio translater? This could be quite valuable to people with poor eyesite.
What if I can't speak, or mute and want to use this device to communicate? What's your answer this Authors Guild?
I'd like to see the Authors Guild try and defend this against the National Federation of the Blind's attorneys.
Sun, this case is nothing like the case you cite. In the article, the comparison to a mother reading the book to her child is a more accurate one. Your comparison would have been accurate if you had said "It's like reading the lyrics of a song," and then ended your sentence right there. Kindle has no ability to retain an electronic copy of the printed material "read." Buying a book and having Kindle read it to you is not the same as buying the book once and getting two copies of it. Personally, I believe this is a case of the Authors' Guild having no real understanding of the technology.
It's all about the mighty dollar. This little gem explains it all: If the Kindle 2's audio quality is good enough, it could eat substantially into the sales of audiobooks, and that alone tends to be a persuasive argument in the courtroom. The authors guild is worried it will lose money, nothing more.
Don't use it on the bible, God has VERY good lawyers...
People generally buy either a hard copy or an audio copy of a book, not both. Either way the author gets a percent of the profits. What you are paying for in the audiobook is the performance of the reader. If a computer can do the job well enough to satisfy most people, that's too bad for people in the audiobook business. People still have the option to buy audiobooks if they like that performance better. But someone using a kindle has paid for a copy of the book whether they read it to themself, have the computer read it to them, or have their brother's cousin's girlfriend read it aloud.
Go Kindle! I can buy software today that does this and it is only a matter of time when all books go digital. I am sure some Monasterys were upset with Gutenberg.
A good source for Medicare Supplement Quotes is: www.lowcostmedigap.com
So whats the difference with the Microsoft ebook reader or and other text to speech software, there is one built into windows and I think the technology has been around since the 80s, what is it a slow news day or just too many lawyers sitting around with nothing to do.
I have a child 18 who has a sever reading disability. This type of software opens the door for opportunity that we all take for granted. It makes me so mad when people cant see past their own dollar signs to see the benifit it has for others.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
46 Posted by shotnwild003 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:21PM EDT Report Abuse
to the person in the first post. It does not store so it is not infringing. This has been done for years on Kurzweil. to store it you have to purchase two agreements. So the Author's are in no way shape or form losing anything but gaining through a second copyright that you bought in the first place. A. I purchase 30 dollar book I have kindle read it to me.I spend two weeks to scan and read say four or 8 chapters a day or whatever. it is done it is not saved. B. I purchased same 30 dollar book go to the media specialist and have it stored on CD so I do not have to do all the labor and I have to pay a special copy right fee just for that. gimme a break and there is a problem where. Kindle is Basically A category. you have to scan and convert and it goes away.