Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Books Media Technology Your Rights Online

Amazon Caves On Kindle 2 Text-To-Speech 370

Posted by Soulskill
from the unexpectedly-generous dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Caves On Kindle 2 Text-To-Speech

Comments Filter:
  • Hackable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Walzmyn (913748) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @08:22AM (#27022243)
    considering that this thing is running linux, I'm going to just set my timer and see how long it is before /. is posting a story that the TTS feature has been opened up to any book.
    • by Mathinker (909784) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @08:35AM (#27022291) Journal

      Even if the encryption algorithm and hardware were "unhackable", how hard could it be to set up a robot finger to press "Next Page" + a digital camera to photograph each page + OCR if desired????

      Have a Kindle title which you want TTS (and it was forbidden)? Just convert it to regular text, as above, and poof, TTS.

      Unless Amazon is going to start checking the files you TTS/read on your Kindle for copyright violations, I suppose.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:02AM (#27022437)
        That is the dumbest fucking thing I have read all week.
      • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:03AM (#27022451)
        "how hard could it be to set up a robot finger to press "Next Page" + a digital camera to photograph each page + OCR if desired????"

        Most people cannot set that up. The point of DRM is not to be un-hackable, it is to be un-hackable by most people, and a system that requires the assembly of a robot is beyond what most Kindle users can set up. In fact, Kindle would be the most successful DRM system ever if it required a robotic finger to defeat, because that is a circumvention measure that cannot be distributed as a file over the Internet, the way systems like deCSS can be.
        • by sqlrob (173498) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:20AM (#27022557)

          irrelevant. It takes *ONE* person to do it and distribute the file. You missed the "and OCR it".

          • irrelevant. It takes *ONE* person to do it and distribute the file. You missed the "and OCR it"."

            Which is not a DRM break, it is an exploit of the last mile problem. It also fails to grant TTS functionality to anyone who wants it; it really grants to anyone who wants it for the specific media that someone with the equipment to scan the book has decided to scan.
            • It's not a complete DRM break, but it is significant -- especially considering that it means the only way to get the version you want is to download it.

              This means that if Amazon ever successfully forces it to get to that stage, as some forms of DRM are at the moment (Blu-Ray), you're also forcing anyone who wants a bit more freedom -- or a feature you've disabled -- to pirate the media in order to get it, whether or not they were ever a legitimate customer.

              And once they go pirate, they might not go back.

              • by eonlabs (921625)

                But if you consider what the post is actually saying, this is not a cave on amazon's part.
                They're actually holding their ground. This basically says that if a publisher or author
                decides they don't want TTS on kindle, then they have to make that decision on a choice by
                choice basis. While it does sting Amazon to a degree, it hurts the author in question more,
                since Amazon is still earning a profit off the TTS support it has for all authors who do
                want it. It sounds like the goal is to hope only a minority ac

                • by atraintocry (1183485) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @02:03PM (#27024263)

                  No, this is Amazon's attempt to play nice with publishers because they need content for the Kindle to work.

                  Holding their ground would be doing the opposite.

                  They know that time is on their side. They are hoping that, like with iTMS, e-books will inevitably represent the largest slice of the book & magazine pie. At that point they will be able to do whatever they like.

                  Good text-to-speech could conceivably kill off the audio book market. But I don't think that you could say it's the same thing as a copyrighted reading of a book performance. It's more like reading a book to your child. So for Amazon to stand their ground they'd have to recognize this as reinterpreting the law to force a market for a product that people eventually aren't going to want or need. And then say, "nope".

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by maxume (22995)

              "That's not a DRM break, it exploits the fact that DRM can't work."

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:07AM (#27022469) Journal

        Sounds like a lot of work. I'd rather just buy the amazon.com book, and then download the pure text file off bittorent as a "backup" that I can conveniently play in my laptop or Iphone or Kindle. Ya know, there are several organizations that read books to the blind, and release them as audio. Like this one: http://www.readingsfortheblind.org/ [readingsfortheblind.org] - I wonder why the Authors' Guild doesn't complain about them?

        Perhaps amazon ought to re-package their marketing. Instead of calling it "text to speech", call the Kindle "handicap accessible" and "reads aloud to our blind patrons". Then it would make the Authors' Guild President look like a dick. "He wants to stop blind people from enjoying books? What an ___."

        • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:10AM (#27022497)
          "I wonder why the Authors' Guild doesn't complain about them?"

          Because by law, the blind must have access to TTS, and therefore the authors' guild cannot make money on it. In this case, they see a money making opportunity, and want to capitalize on it at the expense of consumers.
          • I see a blind advocacy group smacking the hell out of Amazon for this. Comparing TTS to audiobooks is like comparing a high school rendition of hamlet to a big broadway production of it. You hire voice ACTORS for a reason, you dont just plop some schlub in a chair with a script and say 'speak!'

        • by Nerdfest (867930) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:16AM (#27022537)
          I realize you're just giving this as an example, but the better thing to do here is "Stop giving these companies your money!" if you truly believe DRM should be stopped. Where possible, buy from paces that do not support it.
        • by jt418-93 (450715)

          the AG made a point that they 'allow' the blind to do this for free, but don't want everyone to have that option (was in the original article a few days back). seems to me (iANAL) that if you open it up to one group, you have to let everyone.
          but again, iANAL

        • Motivating Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Roger W Moore (538166)

          Sounds like a lot of work. I'd rather just buy the amazon.com book, and then download the pure text file off bittorent as a "backup" that I can conveniently play in my laptop or Iphone or Kindle.

          Of course since you now HAVE to do this in order to have the Kindle TTS work it makes me wonder how many people will simple skip the amazon.com step. It seems to me that this is the usual result of DRM: customer is prevented from doing something reasonable, customer gets really irritated with the company, customer finds out they can stick it to the company by downloading from P2P, customer stops being a customer.

      • by petermgreen (876956) <plugwash.p10link@net> on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:12AM (#27022513) Homepage

        Even if the encryption algorithm and hardware were "unhackable", how hard could it be to set up a robot finger to press "Next Page" + a digital camera to photograph each page + OCR if desired????
        Sounds like a lot more work than just buying a paper copy, gillotineing the spine off and shoving it in a sheet fed scanner.

        Being moderately effective against the casual copiers is about the best a DRM scheme can home for. The geeks and the serious pirates will always find a way to get an unprotected copy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MrZaius (321037)

        You're right at the current price point. When the publishers and Amazon are raking in $10-20 for an ebook with no physical substance, sometimes 50-100% more than the cost of a paperback, it certainly does seem worth breaking.

        Only by loosening the bounds that hold 'em and substantially dropping the price will they ever be able to effectively compete with the printed word, piracy, and free content without completely stripping out the DRM. Tightening up the DRM and raising the price (by forcing duplicate purch

    • Not Hackable (Score:3, Insightful)

      Amazon could easily disable TTS in an un-hackable way. Assuming these books are PDFs, Amazon could replace every other word with a picture of that word; it would look identical to the original, but would kill TTS. I do not know the hardware specification of Kindle, but I assume it has enough storage space for that and that OCR would be tough on its CPU.

      Personally, I would demand lower prices for TTS-disabled books. I should not be paying the same amount that I would for a non-disabled book, and I cert
      • by hplus (1310833)
        Don't Kindles have search capacity? Or a highlight feature? Your plan would kill those as well.
    • Any idea what package is being used for the text to speech? If it's any good it might be a nice addition to my desktop.

      As most text to speech is pretty poor I doubt it is much better than an aid to blind kindle users.

      Actually perhaps the best computerised voice would be anthony hopkins doing his hannibal lector voice. or maybe nelson mandela. wonder how long it would take to produce a large lexicon of words with minimal computerised substitution

    • see how long it is before /. is posting a story that the TTS feature has been opened up to any book.

      Doesn't matter. Any blind user who wants to hear a book will still be a criminal.

      Frankly, I'm shocked at this. Organisations representing blind people have already written open letters to point out the discrimination involved here (although it should have been obvious), and amazon are nonetheless caving to pressure from big corporations who want to undermine citizens' rights under copyright law.

  • by sheehaje (240093) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @08:25AM (#27022257)

    Which title would you buy, one that has the text 2 speech or one that doesn't? Seems like this is a value add, and any publisher would be loosing out by asking Amazon to withhold kindle.

    So, Amazon in a sense wins, because I'm willing to bet most titles will end up with text 2 speech anyways.

    Then again, some people buy operating systems when there are perfectly good operating systems available for free. So what do I know?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2009 @08:33AM (#27022285)

      So what do I know?

      Not enough to spell "losing" correctly, apparently.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Picking on people's typos is a cheap shot.

        • by Skye16 (685048) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:28AM (#27022617)

          Not pointing it out and letting them go through life with the misguided impression that nobody cares that they sound like a fucking idiot is even worse. It's the same level of social apathy as letting someone walk around with a kick me sign taped to their back.

          Only douchebags think that's acceptable.

          • >>>Only douchebags [sic] think that's acceptable.

            It's a TYPO. Instead of "losing" he typed "loosing". That's just a finger stumble, not stupidity. Correcting someone because they mis-spelled a word is one thing, because it helps to educate them, but nitpicking an obvious finger stumble/typo is a cheap shot. It's the online equivalent of laughing at someone when they trip and fall on their face. It makes YOU the douche bag.

            Or grumpy old man ("Do you find yourself saying 'get off my lawn'? I

            • by Skye16 (685048)

              You would be surprised how many people think it is "loosing" instead of "losing". It's very common, and what's more, you can read it in written letters, notes, signs, etc all the time. In my experience, it is far more likely that he typed "loosing" because he thought it was correct than because he had ring-finger jitter - it's one thing if you type worsd liek thsi if you're having freaky fingers - then it's pretty obvious. Otherwise, due to non-trivial numbers of people unable to tell the difference betw

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Which title would you buy, one that has the text 2 speech or one that doesn't? Seems like this is a value add, and any publisher would be loosing out by asking Amazon to withhold kindle.

      So, Amazon in a sense wins, because I'm willing to bet most titles will end up with text 2 speech anyways.

      I agree - I think it will give authors and publishers an opportunity to experiment to determine if T2S has any value to consumers.

      For example, if the tech allows it, you could offer two tier pricing - with T2S costing a little more. Tinker with pricing and see what happens to sales.

      • by Vellmont (569020)


        I think it will give authors and publishers an opportunity to experiment to determine if T2S has any value to consumers.

        Bah. I think it's just an easy way out for Amazon to avoid a potential court battle with the crazed Authors Guild. It's hard for me to believe Amazon wouldn't win, but it's also not really worth it. You'll notice that the publishers weren't making a big stink about this.

        For example, if the tech allows it, you could offer two tier pricing - with T2S costing a little more.

        The voice appare

    • Which title would you buy, one that has the text 2 speech or one that doesn't?

      Novels tend not to have close substitutes. Say both Anne Rice and Stephenie Meyer decide to turn off text-to-speech. Would someone who depends on text-to-speech (but doesn't qualify for a section 121 device) have to switch from vampire stories to something else? Or how would you work around having text-to-speech turned off in the textbooks that your instructor has assigned?

      Then again, some people buy operating systems when there are perfectly good operating systems available for free.

      Because operating systems aren't perfect substitutes either. There are plenty of apps and devices that run on Windows, but they neither

    • by bwalling (195998)

      Which title would you buy, one that has the text 2 speech or one that doesn't?

      I buy books because of the content, not the technological features.

    • by MtViewGuy (197597)

      It's possible that Amazon may have waved an offer in front of the Author's Guild that will allow both a Kindle e-book file and an Audible spoken word file download at the same time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by scoove (71173)

      I'll only buy TTS books. I own a Kindle2 and have more than 20 texts (philosophy works for my degree and debate coaching) on there already. I've spent more than $500 in the past week on my Kindle investment.

      As someone who also commutes, I find the TTS to be invaluable already. We'll see if that continues to last, but as I'm reading for educational purposes, not entertainment, I have a utilitarian informational need. I don't need an actor reading Baudrillard's "The Illusion of the End" (the words are powerfu

  • DRM wins again! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So you can't "buy" the title, can't sell it or loan it out, can't give it away, and now they can control precisely how you consume it. Is it any wonder why devices like this are doomed to fail when it comes to the mass market. People aren't complete stupid.

    • Re:DRM wins again! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by damaki (997243) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:22AM (#27022569)
      Yeah, people are so intelligent that they have been buying DRMed files for years on iTunes while CDs exist for a similar price.
      And Then they are again so intelligent that some pay premium to strip the DRM from their old iTunes tracks instead of downloading these from another source.

      Yeah, people are not completely stupid...
  • Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ender_Stonebender (60900) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @08:36AM (#27022297) Homepage Journal

    Why am I cheering about what seems to be a complete breakdown of what geeks want?

    Simple - for most books, the "rightsholder" is the AUTHOR, not the publisher. (This is the opposite situation from the music industry.)

    So authors will need to contact Amazon to disable this, and I'm betting that generally they won't bother. If the book publishers tell Amazon to do it, Amazon can just point out that the copyright is not in their control.

    • If that's true, why was the book form of the RIAA (Authors Guild) doing the suing? And if the Guild can presume to speak for authors in court, can't they do the same when they demand amazon block the text-to-speech feature? I'm not really seeing that the Guild will act any differently than the RIAA has acted.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Brandee07 (964634)

        The Authors Guild did not actually sue anyone, they just raised a media stink.

        I'm not exactly a raving fan of the Authors Guild for this, but I'm happy they didn't sue any grandmas who don't even own the device in question in order to make their point.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You don't understand how publishing works. I'm an author with several books under his belt.

      I hold the copyright in all my books, yes. But I grant the publishing company an exclusive license to publish them. Effectively, I sign the book over to them, and they decide what to do with it.

      In nearly all cases, publishing companies dictate the terms, and request absolute and universal publishing rights. I'm sure a handful of big-name authors flip this around, but most of us have to dance to the publisher's beat.

      So

  • by Manip (656104) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @08:37AM (#27022303)

    Although seriously questionable legally, if the authors guild was able to prove that Text-To-Speech of copyright books was copyright infringement then that would be absolutely huge.

    Tons of disabled people already depend on text-to-speech and with an ever older populace this is only going to become even more important to everyone.

    Plus, where does the copyright end? If someone makes a book reference in public will they get their butt sued? Or will we have to get a public display licence to have a conversation now?

    Ultimately Amazon shouldn't concede on this. In fact I want this to be legally tested and put to rest asap.

    • 17 USC 121 (Score:5, Informative)

      by tepples (727027) <tepples@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Saturday February 28, 2009 @08:54AM (#27022381) Homepage Journal

      Tons of disabled people already depend on text-to-speech and with an ever older populace this is only going to become even more important to everyone.

      People with disabilities can use specialized devices, which are made available only by prescription to people with a qualifying disability, that play copies of works produced under an exception to the U.S. copyright statute (17 USC 121 [copyright.gov]). Kindle 2, being available to all, does not meet this requirement.

    • Although seriously questionable legally...

      Are you a lawyer?

      Tons of disabled people already depend on text-to-speech and with an ever older populace this is only going to become even more important to everyone.

      Guess not.

      Disabled folks get a legal pass around the Copyright law specifically for this.

      Plus, where does the copyright end? If someone makes a book reference in public will they get their butt sued? Or will we have to get a public display licence to have a conversation now?

      What?!? What are you talkin

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dj245 (732906)
      I wonder what would happen if the Kindle suddenly got a couple thousand 1-star reviews complaining about this. It worked for Spore.
  • Goes to far (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mwilliamson (672411) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @08:39AM (#27022321) Homepage Journal
    Copyright does not give the property holder the right to tell users what color/brand glasses they are allowed to wear when reading a particular title and this is really no different. Amazon/Kindle should stick to their guns and let the end user decide to turn on the TTS engine or not. Besides, most people can read a lot faster than even the fastest discernible speech.
  • by nloop (665733) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @08:51AM (#27022373)
    This may be flame bait, but does anyone else really not care about this DRM laden device? I feel like people here generally agree that the DMCA, DRM, RIAA, and a lot of other acronyms are bad, however, the Kindle seems to break the rules and suddenly be cool? When someone jailbreaks it and allows the use of admittedly nice looking display without being tied to Amazon's DRM I will be interested. Until then, stop, please.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by base3 (539820)
      It's like the iPod. All the Apple fanboys loved Steve for putting the DRM and vendor lock-in into a pretty velvet glove--and of coursed blamed it on the evil record companies. The Amazon fans are doing the same thing with the Kindle and the publishers. I personally would feel like a moron to pay nearly the same price as for a paper copy of a book (which I can resell, give away, or do whatever else I see fit with) as for a digital restrictions laden electronic copy tethered to one device.
      • by Duradin (1261418) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @12:34PM (#27023663)

        I hear ya! Those iPods. I really wish they could play something other then iTunes DRM files. Every other MP3 player plays, well, MP3s, and we all know you can't put DRM on those! Or even if I could take a cd I own and put it into the iPod format so I could listen to it on the iPod and not have to buy it again from them. Mean ol' Steve making me buy the White album again. If only I'd have known that I'd have to buy everything I wanted to listen to from iTunes.

        Maybe someday someone will figure out how to get other files onto a Kindle so you don't have to buy everything from Amazon...

    • by aliquis (678370)

      For me it's to expensive and I want the books for free to be interested.

      But one can always whine on DRM even if one don't care for the device =P

  • This is a perfect example of why DRM is wrong in all respects. Hey, I agree, authors need a revenue stream, but damn it, people who pay money for a work shouldn't have to keep paying to use it.

    Copyright is a balance between the rights of an author and the good of society. We have lost "the society" as a stake holder in the discussion.

    If you produce a medium that prevents the "fair use" of the content, then I believe you should not have the force of copyright to protect you.

  • While one can argue about the impact on music, books, reading, spread of knowledge, has always been a singularly important practice, this whole scandal has been about greed, and nothing more, people want their money. Its a shame that as a society we cave to monetary demands and forget the importance that information should be free.
  • by macraig (621737) <mark.a.craig@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:08AM (#27022481)

    Publishers won't be makin' a penny offa me for this "added value" anyway... I have to subvocalize when I read, so I wouldn't want to hear anyone but the voices already inside my head. Ooops, gotta go, one of them wants something....

  • This is a big blow for future development of AI!

    As with everything in capitalistic scientific advancement, and foremost in the military, development works best if there is a future practical application in sight. So far NLP (NOT [god beware] Neurolinguistic Programming, but Natural Language Processing) and AI research didn't make big strides because they are just fiddling around with no real idea what to use this for. But with the Kindle 2, we have the first actual application which would benefit from n
  • Clever play (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray.beckermanlegal@com> on Saturday February 28, 2009 @09:13AM (#27022523) Homepage Journal
    Although I find it abhorrent from a copyright law perspective, this might have been a very clever move by Amazon. These rights holders who can't make money legitimately have been going around trying to make money by making extortionate threats. Amazon just removed that card from the Authors Guild's hand. I wonder how the authors -- who are supposed to be served by the Authors Guild -- feel about it. Kindle and Kindle 2 were 2 of the best things that have happened to authors; nice to alienate Amazon.

    I wonder how many of the authors will now 'opt out' of the text-to-speech feature. I'm guessing: none.

    Amazon showed this threat for what it was: extortion.
  • by General Wesc (59919) <slashdot@wescnet.cjb.net> on Saturday February 28, 2009 @10:05AM (#27022823) Homepage Journal

    Wil Wheaton has evaluated the Author Guild's claim and found it stupid. [typepad.com] Other wise authors [neilgaiman.com] concur.

    The Authors Guild acts more like you'd expect from a Book Publishers Guild, though I'm sure a large number of authors are on their side on this.

  • Good solution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SpinyNorman (33776) on Saturday February 28, 2009 @10:11AM (#27022863)

    This really makes the choices obvious for authors, as well as for the dim-witted authors guild:

    Either you:

    a) Think you can profitably produce and market an audio book version of your work, or

    b) Realize the audio book market for your work is too small to be profitable, and you'd be better off taking advantage of Kindle's no-cost-to-you TTS enhanced sales of your e-Book, or

    c) Both of the above. The truth being that TTS is decades away from sounding anything like an emotive prosodic human reading, and that the market overlap between true human read audio books and robotic sounding TTS is miniscule.

    ***

    As far as how TTS will improve, I can only see two long-term possibilities that will allow it to approach human quality:

    1) It'll be based on a human-level AI where it can interpret the text as well as a human. It'll happen, but not for a long time.

    2) An expert system approach, based partly on language/speech expertise, and partly on limited semantic analysis (e.g. based on something like Cyc) where plain text can be analyzed and marked up with prosody/voicing/emotional, etc, annotation to be interpreted by a suitable enhanced TTS engine. This doesn't need to be done in real-time - e-Books and other content could be offline processed into this enhanced form. This option wouldn't result in as nuanced a performance as a human one (because it'd be based on minimal understanding of the text), but it could be a major step up from the minimal prosodic/etc rules built into TTS engines today, and the current lack of emotional/voicing control. We're still talking years if not decades of research and development though.

  • I legally acquire some content, I have the right to do whatever I want with it for my personal consumption. I can use it to scare away crows, even if some "license" doesn't grant that "privilege".

    Now, my rights do not force a manufacturer (or SW developer) to add features like a digital jack or an API, if the provider doesn't want to. But the copyright owner of the content does not have the right to stop that provider, if the provider wants to. And indeed the provider does not have the right to do additiona

  • It really makes me wonder if Amazon could fight this via something like the Americans with Disabilities Act. After all, should publishers get an extra kick-back just because a third party helps someone else to read a book they've already paid for?

    Keep in mind that there are very distinct differences between text-to-speeching an actual book versus listening to an audio book. For example, can you specify an audio book to only play back a particular sentence from a particular paragraph on a particular page? Al

  • You know, I am not a lawyer, but I wonder how the Americans with Disabilities Act could affect this in the end? Essentially, Amazon.com was offering a reasonable accommodation permitting any blind person to read any of the e-books that they sell. As I understand it, businesses are required to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled customers. At this point, the publishers are basically making an unreasonable insistence on reducing accessibility. I think it unlikely that they will be able to successfu

  • I imagine the boardroom discussion went something along the line of, "Hey, Vinnie! Dees m*th3rf@&!3r& at Amazon is selling da same as our audio books at book prices 'n cutting into our pie. Send the sharks on 'em!" All about "added value" one would think.

    Amazon? I imagine they figure the blind have a national association that can make a big stink about this without Amazon wasting their own lawyer time.
     

  • This whole thing is silly.

    When a computer program can compete with a talented human reader in converting text to audio, authors and publishers won't care about that problem at all.

    On that day, a computer program will be able to WRITE the book, as well as perform it.

  • I can see this kind of actions running foul of the ADA. How are blind people going to have access to this technology?

    Also in the works are actions against capchas not conforming to the ADA. Example, Microsoft has an audio capcha that people with hearing difficulties
    can't solve. I know because I am far from deaf and was trying to download a hotfix. They have an audio capcha which I have difficulty solving. To make matters worse, they failed to offer alternatives. Of course this also applies to people

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...