Slashdot Log In
Remote Kill Flags Surface In Kindle
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu May 14, 2009 09:14 AM
from the because-they-can dept.
from the because-they-can dept.
PL/SQL Guy writes "The Kindle has a number of 'remote kill' flags built in to the hardware that, among other things, allow the text-to-speech function to be disabled at any time on a book-by-book basis. 'Beginning yesterday, Random House Publishers began to disable text-to-speech remotely. The TTS function has apparently been remotely disabled in over 40 works so far.' But what no one at Amazon will discuss is what other flags are lurking in the Kindle format: is there a 'read only once' flag? A 'no turning the pages backwards' flag?"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Author's Guild Says Kindle's Text-To-Speech Software Illegal 683 comments
Mike writes "The Author's Guild claims that the new Kindle's text-to-speech software is illegal, stating that 'They don't have the right to read a book out loud,' said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. 'That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.' Forget for a moment that text-to-speech doesn't copy an existing work. And forget the odd notion that the artificial enunciation of plain text is equivalent to a person's nuanced and emotive reading. The Guild's claim is that even to read out loud is a production akin to an illegal copy, or a public performance."
[+]
Amazon Caves On Kindle 2 Text-To-Speech 370 comments
On Wednesday we discussed news that the Authors Guild had objected to the text-to-speech function on Amazon's Kindle 2, claiming that it infringed on audio book copyright. Today, Amazon said that while the feature is legally sound, they would be willing to disable text-to-speech on a title-by-title basis at the rightsholder's request. "We have already begun to work on the technical changes required to give authors and publishers that choice. With this new level of control, publishers and authors will be able to decide for themselves whether it is in their commercial interests to leave text-to-speech enabled. We believe many will decide that it is."
Submission: Remote Kill Flags Surface In Kindle by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
First post flag! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First post flag! (Score:5, Funny)
I am kinda glad they are doing this remotely. I'd be upset if an Amazon SWAT team broke into my house and physically disabled my Kindle.
--
Slow Poke [pair.com]
Parent
Re:First post flag! (Score:5, Insightful)
You think this is funny, but I'm not laughing. Right now, in my mind, amazon is no better than Mr. Soprano.
I bought a bunch of books to use the "text-to-speech" software while driving to work, and now suddenly that's been disabled, which makes those particular books practically worthless to me. Is Amazon going to issue a refund? No, because just like every other media company, they think it's okay to sell goods without warranty. Hell even the lowly food industry says, "We hope you are satisfied with you're candy bar, but if you're not, return unused portion for refund." Only the iuck-lcikers in the rcord companis, game cmpanies, and book sotress think it;s perfectly acceptable to FORCE customers to keep a product they don't want. No returns.
If they go out of business, it will be their own stupid fault due to ignoring that age-old rule, "The customer is (almost) always right." Screw your customer by selling them product as "text-to-speech" and then disable that product, and you've effectively screwed yourself. Customers have a long, long memory. They will not come back for further frakking. Even the most rudimentary business class teaches you this.
Parent
They asked for it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't smoke marijuana; however, I know plenty of people who do. This situation has existed since before I was born. People, and politicians (they don't count as people), have discussed making marijuana legal. It may never happen in my lifetime. That does not stop people from recognizing bad law.
Copyright is there to protect the artist. I see little artistic protection in copyright law. I see corporate protection. I don't think I am the only one who sees this, hence all the downloads.
People will NOT obey an unjust law. When corporations declare that they sold you a license instead of a product and start turning off access to what the customer paid for...well, you reap what you sow. There are not enough lawyers out there to sue everyone who downloads. Ask the RIAA if you don't believe me.
Besides, downloaded stuff just works better. I hate to tell all those coke-sniffing, mistress pampering executives at all those corporations that their business model sucks donkey-dick, but I have to. Downloads don't pester people with advertisements. They start up immediately. They play the entire content. You can change direction when you want. You can shift the content to other media. Shit! What's not to like? Except that we do cheat the artist. That cannot be denied. We must find a way to support the arts, and dump the middle-man. That middle-man is getting in the way of culture.
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Interesting)
It was never cashed, but I feel good about it anyway.
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Informative)
It might not have been cashed because he (she?/they?) may have a clause in his contract saying he cannot accept money directly for his music.
Yeah...really...
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Insightful)
"may have a clause in his contract saying he cannot accept money directly for his music."
Or maybe because he has some integrity?
I know when I was a performing musician, we could buy extremely discounted albums from our label, but it was considered by most to be slimy to go to the local duplicator and get a thousand or two printed up for your tour. Yet, some thought they could be a little cheaper by doing so.
It also means that everyone that worked on the album and were not paid outright get screwed...often times, if you only pay the artist, folks like the songwriters and the producer and even the little guys that did something for substandard pay because they believed the work was good and would eventually get paid for it -- those folks get nothing when you send them the money directly.
Honestly, this would be like stealing a Mac and sending Steve Jobs a check for the price of the machine...he is the one with his name out front, but it takes a LOT of work to bring something to market and with rare exceptions, it is not a one man show.
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Informative)
Session musicians - already paid
Studio Engineers - already paid
Studio rental - already paid
Production costs - already paid
Cover artist - already paid
Distribution costs - already paid
The only people who get paid copyright fees are the production company and the artist, I personally do not care about the production company (and if the music is more than a year old, they will have already been paid in full, or are incompetent) and if pay the artist anything even 1 cent it would be more than will ever see by me buying the music legitimately
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Insightful)
No shit.
I have not bought a Kindle. This nutter [leasticoulddo.com] thinks that newspapers could "save" by distributing over Kindle instead of on paper.
Guy down later in the forum has it exactly right. You can't put a Kindle in your waiting room. If your "copy" of the paper is on a Kindle, you can't read the sports page while someone else has the world section or the comics. You can't hand "your copy" of the paper to someone else, or leave it behind once you're done with it if it's on a Kindle (something I do regularly - hey, I don't know the next person coming by, but I imagine they might want to read something too).
Hell, if it's on a Kindle, we lose yesterday's newspaper - so how will we wrap today's fish?
In all seriousness, that's the problem with DRM. It's never about "protecting copyright." It's always about some more nefarious purpose, like destroying the doctrine of first sale [wikipedia.org]. Remember how $ony patented a method to have video games "signed" by the first console they were put in, and subsequently refuse to run on any other console? That was just one of them.
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Insightful)
And I find it a bit ironic you trust pirates of all people to deliver you a product free of root kits and trojans.
I don't totally disagree with you, though. We do give the middle man too much and the artist too little. But pirating gives the artist less.
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Insightful)
And I find it a bit ironic you trust pirates of all people to deliver you a product free of root kits and trojans.
Like Securom or Sony's crap? Yeah, I trust the pirates more than the original.
If you're really worried, look at the feedback for the torrent. Or look for names of groups who pride themselves on the quality of their cracks. There's an entire subculture based on that.
And if the whole release is a .avi, there's not much to talk about anyway.
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Insightful)
If I choose to obtain a digital copy of a work I would never pay for, I am not actually depriving the creator of anything. It doesn't matter why I would choose not to pay. It might be because I am cheap, poor or lazy. It might be because I find something about the creator or publisher to be morally objectionable (like say, abuse of copyright). As such, I find no moral objection to obtaining an illegal copy, often made illegal through a law I find morally objectionable.
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with depriving the creator of anything. It has to do with the creator's rights to have his creations distributed on his terms.
It's not a "natural" right in any way shape or form, it is inherently an unnatural right. You're not depriving the creator of any liberty, you're only going around the purely legal bargain between the people, and content creators, to give them this unnatural "right" with the hopes that in the end it will benefit us more than if we didn't relinquish our own natural right to do whatever we wish with our own possessions.
Since the whole concept behind this bargain is that the copyright will help the creator make money and thus be incentivized to create, but in the case in question the person is most definitely not depriving the creator of any money, where exactly is this moral issue that you're so upset over?
Is it simply that this is the law, and breaking the law is amoral? I certainly don't agree to that, but I will as always agree to have you be the first one subject to the world you wish for, and encourage you to eat a bullet the next time you break any law at all. Since you've certainly already done so willfully, I expect no further posts from you.
Parent
Re:They asked for it (Score:5, Insightful)
I need less people thinking they can freeload off creative works because they rationalize that they "never would have paid for it."
If you won't pay for it, don't take it. It's not rocket science.
Parent
The Flag That Cannot Be Named (Score:5, Funny)
But what no one at Amazon will discuss is what other flags are lurking in the Kindle format: is there a "read only once" flag?
No. But there inside your home on your desk inside your kindle is a flag so vile, so full of hatred, so very <insert your opposing political party here> that when activated it will only let you read books from Oprah's Book Club.
Hey, it's me pot! Over here with kettle! (Score:5, Funny)
TFA About Reading-Disabled Students (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, as a parent of an autistic child, I know how valuable the TTS function can be in our computer programs. As an author, I'm saddened that Amazon's rolled over on this for the publishers' and Author's Guild panic. TTS is not the same as an audiobook performance, nor does it have that possibility any time soon.
Remote kill or flag change? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the first is more likely - although the second could be useful in other ways (the Kindle could automatically correct errors in books as they are found).
Re:Remote kill or flag change? (Score:5, Insightful)
(the Kindle could automatically correct errors in books as they are found).
Yeah, especially the inconvenient ones in history books.
Parent
forget it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:forget it (Score:5, Informative)
What you really want is a tablet PC running Linux if you are concerned about DRM. Any product where you don't have control over the operating system or environment will always be suspect to the whims of corporate lawyers.
Parent
Killflags... (Score:5, Interesting)
...and they are internet capable? I'm going to laugh my ass off when some hacker reduces every ebook on every Kindle in the world to a useless pile of bits.
As my wife says, "Fuck 'em." (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to get my wife a Kindle for her birthday. She asked, "What's the point? The books are almost as expensive, and I can't send them to my mom or sister when I'm done. And what happens when the hardware breaks, and I need to get a new one? I don't want to be forced to get a Kindle just because those are the books I bought before. Fuck 'em."
My wife, the non-geek. She gets it.
I'm done with Amazon (Score:5, Informative)
I was a customer for over ten years. Spent well over ten thousand dollars there in books and other items. But for the last several years their customer support has declined, their partner businesses engage in numerous disreputable practices that mirror the abuses at ebay, their manipulation of book rankings on so-called adult material (gay), and they seem intent on monopolizing the epublishing trade. I closed my account and won't look back.
Yes, the Kindle-DX looks like a nice machine. But what one gives up in basic rights as a reader is more than enough to keep me buying used books printed on dead trees for some time. And I can always scan the books I buy to load on an ereader with less virulent DRM limitations and corporate controls. I own an iRex iLiad, that while not the best manufacturer, at least they offer a free Linux development environment to download and install. Users are hacking new software on that platform. Does anyone here expect Amazon to allow that? Not me.
BTW: closing my account with Amazon took several phone calls and numerous transfers from one department to the next. They don't like it when customers attempt to leave them and make the process as difficult as possible. Yet another reason to never give them my money again.
Re:I'm done with Amazon (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like canceling an AOL account in the '90s.
Parent
Re:I'm done with Amazon (Score:5, Informative)
To remove my credit card from their database. Also, to remove my customer record. And finally, to let them know just how displeased I am with their business practices.
Parent
I have remote flags also... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawsuit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't one of those Blind Advocacy groups sue them for discrimination?
You Don't Own MY Works. (Score:5, Funny)
This is my post. I wrote it. Is is a creative and inventive work which benefits society at large. Moreover, it is a concrete example of intellectual property. This post, that you are reading right now, belongs to me. It is mine.
This post is mine in the same way that my house, or car or clothes are mine. These words that I have written are given as much protection as freedom of speech or to vote. They need it. If just anyone is allowed to come along and copy them, or alter them, or include them in another work without my permission, then it will be as though my right to speak freely has been taken away, or I have been disenfranchised.
If someone else reads these words without paying me, or worse sells them to others to read, I will have been robbed. It will be as if my home was burned down, or my family sold into slavery. An injustice of the highest order.
These words need protections. Strong protections. This post needs to be defended, even as it is copied endless and effortlessly across millions of computers, each recopying it hundreds of times, at negligible expense. The worth of these words is worth more than all the bits it occupies in cyberspace. Indeed, their worth is worth more than the worth of cyberspace, and even society itself.
For if these words, if this post cannot be afforded the most stringent, uncompromising and sacred protection that our society has to offer, then our society will not be worth the bits it is represented on. The reality of digital worldwide transmission must not be allowed to compromise the most fundamental rights we have. The protection of this post is a challenge which our civilization must meet, or else our civilization must fall.
This post and all related materials, Copyright © ObsessiveMathsFreak 2009.
All rights reserved, worldwide.
None of the materials provided in this post site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, without express permission in writing from the author, along with suitable monetary compensation.
Unauthorized use of the materials in this post are subject to prosecution to the fullest exent allowable by law.
Was Stallman Right? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Was Stallman Right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't really seem possible. If they are wrong then that is the last thing that history will judge them as. If they are right then history won't remember them at all.
Parent
Amazon killed my book. Here's why... (Score:5, Informative)
The following was from the first paragraph of the email:
I've requested a refund for "NAME OF BOOK OMITTED". Issuing a refund also removes access to the file. If the item is still on your Kindle, please delete that copy. After the refund is issued, you will no longer be able to access it.
Well, I watched for it, and not only was access to the file removed, The file is no longer present.
Amazon has the Kill-switch ability to delete content. I am going to assume they have the ability to delete my personal content I add to through the USB.
Old news (Score:5, Interesting)
This is old news. The whole brouhaha over this happened months ago. The Kindle 2 came out, with text-to-speech. The Author's Guild whined like little babies claiming it would reduce audiobook sales (presumably they also want to charge you for reading to your kids.) They wanted the functionality removed completely. Amazon reached a compromise, that publishers could opt-out by requesting that it be disallowed on their books.
There's no point getting your panties in a bunch *now*. The horse is out of the barn. Nor is Amazon the one to complain to. The publishers and the Author's Guild are the ones to complain to.
If anything, Amazon deserves credit for putting the feature in in the first place without restrictions. Given their business model, you might have expected them to proactively design the feature to the publishers' requirements long before it was released. They might have been like Microsoft who preemptively crippled the Zune's sharing feature.
Everyone is upset about this, but not me. (Score:5, Interesting)
To me, this flagging ability should be viewed as a good thing.
All books should be available from the library FOR FREE. You go to the library, you borrow the book, and you return it in two weeks. You can re-check it out again for another 2 weeks if you want.
This flagging ability COULD allow this to be done without driving to the library. You COULD use this to NEVER buy a book. You simply "check it out" for 2 weeks and then it vanishes.
Now I'm skeptical that it will ever be allowed to work this way, but this is the way such devices SHOULD work. If I can go check out a physical copy for 2 weeks, why not a digital copy? If it's free, I don't mind if it vanishes in 2 weeks, just like a library loan would.
We teach dyslexic kids (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire reason we bought Kindles was the text to speech function. Our school teaches dyslexic kids and any technology that allows these kids to read ANY book, whether or not an audio book version is available, is extremely useful.
Without unlimited text to speech kindles are reduced, from a useful teaching tool, to simply a nifty gadget. Without TTS, there is very little to justify the cost of these over other e-book readers.
Good job Amazon! You've just allowed your book publishers to kill a potentially HUGE market for these things - schools.
-ted
Re:Flags (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly you're new here - the "baseless speculation" bit is implicitly set on all stories.
Parent
Re:Flags (Score:5, Funny)
From his UID, I'd say he was half as new as you :)
Parent
Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think that having functionality removed from something you've bought, after the fact, is a problem?
Parent
Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think that having functionality removed from something you've bought, after the fact, is a problem?
This is the big issue for me.
Say I'm shopping for a new toaster. There's all sorts of toasters on the market, lots of good models to choose from. Ultimately I decide to buy one specifically because it has a built-in bagel slicer... But not just any bagel slicer - it's some kind of high-powered laser bagel slicer.
But, after I buy the thing, lawsuits start cropping up. Kids are sticking their fingers in the thing and getting them sliced off. Traditionally manufacturers have done a recall if something like this happened... Or issued a warning... Or designed new packaging that indicates it isn't kid-safe... Or redesigned the product so that kids can't stick their fingers in it...
Not anymore though. These days they'd just send the kill signal and disable the laser bagel slicer. Suddenly my toaster, which I bought specifically for the bagel slicer, has no bagel slicer.
A key feature that made me buy that product, instead of another, is gone. A feature that may have made one product cost more than another, is gone. A feature that I liked and used, is gone.
I definitely have a problem with that.
Parent
Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag (Score:5, Informative)
It should be considered to be theft on a massive scale. What else would we call it when A deprives B of something that they paid for fair and square?
The problem with "buying" digital content these days is that the only way you can legally purchase it is by agreeing to 50 pages of legalese that basically strip you of any rights you could possibly have with regard to the information you're buying. Thus, you are giving them money without any assurance that you'll actually be able to make any use of what you're buying. Nice racket they've got going, huh?
Parent
memento flag (Score:5, Funny)
the memento flag:
you can only read the chapters once and in reverse order only.
the pulp fiction flag:
chapter order is randomized
the Bedazzled flag:
last page is missing in mystery novels
the pat robertson flag:
all naughty words like "gay" and "damn" are changed to "homo" and "golly"
they also introduced several modes:
leet speak mode:
so your p4r3nts can't read over your shoulder.
The beevis and bottomhead flag:
all accidental double entedres are bolded (heh heh).
Ascii art mode
speed reading mode: the words disappear from the page at defined rate.
Controverial undocumented ebonics and hot coffee modes.
Parent
Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag (Score:5, Funny)
Do we need a "sensationalist" tag? Is CmdrTaco abusing his power as editor? What's stopping him from using these powers to spy on your Slashdot viewing habits? Will he kill your family and steal your very soul through your nose? And what about his wife? Why don't we ever hear about her? What's she got to hide?
All very suspicious. Terrifying, you might say...
Parent
Re:tags are in the books (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a law suit waiting to happen if there is no disclosure that the books will have these "flags" at the time of purchase.
Big fucking deal. If history is any guide, the affected consumers will get a credit for $0.99 off their next purchase from Amazon while the law firm who initiated the lawsuit will walk away with millions. Amazon will just write it off as a cost of doing business and go right on screwing their customers, albeit this time with a disclaimer about the DRM flags clearly displayed in a 2pt font.
Call me cynical.....
Parent
Re:tags are in the books (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:tags are in the books (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK Amazon clearly wants to have text-to-speech enabled for all books. It's the publishers (and their threat to remove works if speech is enabled) you should be mad at. Amazon is trying their damnedest to make a compelling ebook product, and like Apple with iTunes, trying to drag the publisher's kicking and screaming onto the internet.
Like music, I expect once the market is there, people will demand the functionality (or pirate for it, or sue for it) and it will become commonplace.
If Amazon took a high and mighty moral stand, they would just be killing the market (and their own business opportunity) and letting another eBook maker who WILL compromise their morals take over the market.
At least we know Amazon is trying to open things up as much as they can.
Parent
Re:tags are in the books (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK Amazon clearly wants to have text-to-speech enabled for all books. It's the publishers (and their threat to remove works if speech is enabled) you should be mad at.
If Amazon wants us to direct our ire towards the publishers, then they should have come clean about these flags before selling the Kindle. Except, wait... then it would have flopped, and hard. Instead, they pulled a bait and switch fraud on their customers.
Parent