Amazon Caves On Kindle 2 Text-To-Speech 370
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."
Hackable (Score:5, Interesting)
So Amazon wins anyway (Score:4, 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.
Then again, some people buy operating systems when there are perfectly good operating systems available for free. So what do I know?
Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Serious impacts... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Override legally required? (Score:1, Interesting)
And will there be an override for people with disabilities? If not, I hope that the blind and other people with disabilities sue Amazon for removing a capability that should legally be required, By law, it is not a violation of copyright for a blind person to use text-to-speech for any book.
Did I miss the memo? DRM is OK now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So Amazon wins anyway (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.
Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ___."
Re:Clever play (Score:2, Interesting)
"I wonder how the authors -- who are supposed to be served by the Authors Guild -- feel about it."
John Scalzi
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/02/11/hello/ [scalzi.com]
Cory Doctorow
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/25/authors-guild-vs-rea.html [boingboing.net]
Neil Gaiman
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/02/quick-argument-summary.html [neilgaiman.com]
Wil Wheaton
http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/02/wil-wheaton-vs-text-2-speech.html [typepad.com]
Wil Wheaton vs. text 2 speech (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Sigh... Not this shit again [encycloped...matica.com]...
How would you like to spend a year creating a document, and then your boss decides to take the document without paying you?
I wouldn't. Just how do you think DRM would protect you from this?
In fact, why would you need it? Just sue your boss for the past year of wages. Not that it was very smart of you to work for free for a year...
Oh, but I forgot -- this is a bad analogy for something completely different.
In essence that's what happens to authors every time someone takes a book. It's stolen labor.
Ah, yes, because every time I take a book, I'm really forcing you to work for a year without getting paid. It's totally the same thing.
In fact, maybe this is even true if I don't actually take it -- if I just copy it, that's the same thing, right? Because taking a photograph of you is just like kidnapping you, right?
What I object to is when a product stops working. Like when Walmart turned-off their DRM music servers. In that case consumers should have a right to demand a refund since the product is no longer functioning as advertised. Billion-dollar walmart can certainly afford it.
Ah, so ripping people off is ok, so long as they have billions of dollars? Good to know.
In the case of Wall-Mart, it does make sense that they should either do that, or open up the music. But how, then, should a publisher implement DRM? If they assume that when they shut down the DRM store, they must provide a full refund for everything sold, ever, then no one would ever start a DRM store in the first place. If they assume that they'll have to open up the DRM, then people like you would never do business with them, because clearly, the second the DRM servers shut down, everyone will start swapping your files like it's 1999.
Look, I'd have more sympathy if DRM ever actually worked -- though even then, it's still a massive inconvenience for legitimate consumers. As it is, DRM has driven me to piracy more than any other issue, including money. If I can't buy and download your book in a format I can easily read on Linux -- like, say, PDF -- I will pirate and download that book in such a format, or I will not read it at all. Either way, you're out of a sale.
It's not that I'm cheap. I have bought music through channels where I can get it for free, especially lossless. I've got my mother using Amazon MP3, for example. But we're not going to pay for a crippled product, just so you can pretend it won't get pirated. In fact, I, for one, am going to do everything in my power to ensure that people like you make less money, the more DRM you use -- and not just because you're spending money on snake-oil to some little company that pretends to know crypto.
Americans with Disabilities Act? (Score:2, Interesting)
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 successfully block the feature.
After all, programs like JAWS already make many major applications and the web accessible. Imagine if web pages started blocking access to their websites for screen readers? It would be ridiculous, and this is too.
Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea (Score:4, Interesting)
I stopped reading you when you started redefining concepts.
Here in slashdot some of us are somewhat literate.
Copyright is not property, it's a distribution monopoly usually backed by a government.
Your view on the "essence" of copyright infringement is very far from mine, and from what I remember as usual from the pre-digital age.
I think the main problem is that copyright is such a difficult concept to grasp, that using analogies is always misleading (lying, I mean).
When intellectual works are released to the public, the same laws than assign copyright to the publisher, also give the ownership to the public domain.
So, you could not steal from the author something he does not own. Of course you can't steal a book from the public domain, because once you copy it, the public domain doesn't cease to have it, either, but that's another thing.
When you hear the words "stealing" or "theft", dealing with copyrights, usually it means someone is lying to you. You might be able to steal a copyright, but that would involve registering other people's work as yours, and you would be stealing the distribution monopoly, not the actual content. You can't steal intellectual works themselves.
Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think DRM (we called it "copy-protection" when I was a lad) should be stopped because I think authors should have a right to protect their labor from theft.
I completely agree and if DRM did only that there would be no issue. However DRM goes well beyond that. It stops be transferring a book from say a Kindle to an iTouch, it stops me from making a backup, it gives control of my device to a publisher etc.
These are important capabilities when dealing with digital media because while a physical book may last for decades digital devices last for 5 years at most. Books are hard to destroy by accident, whereas memory can easily be wiped or rendered inaccessible either be accident or by a fault in the device. Lastly nobody but me should have control over a device which I own. If a publisher thinks it is illegal for me to use a device to read-aloud their book then they should sue me in court and prove their case (which I highly doubt they can do, at least here in Canada), they should not be able to restrict my use of the device based on their whim - or at least if they do I should at least have the right to overule those restrictions if I can.
Re:Goes to far (Score:1, Interesting)
Then the authors would lose out on a potentially large market of readers and realize the cost of their mistake. Would you want such an outcome?
Wumblegrumble... (Score:2, Interesting)
This legislation should be easy to fix. Trouble is, the greed of the copyright holders is less easy to deal with.
Leakness at Amazon (Score:1, Interesting)
The text-to-speech is a selling feature of the kindle 2 for me. Now I don't know if I can buy one. The TTS is a matter of access to print material for many people. I prefer TTS to audio books because you can speed up TTS with little or no loss of quality.
I just wish Amazon would stick up for the rights of people with print disabilities and help "us" compel publishers to allow for equal and free access to print.
I also support the idea of labeling these books TTS-Locked. The consumer has the right to know if the book they are buying will be accessible to them or not. Maybe then the guild and others will realize that preventing people with disabilities from accessing their material isn't protecting their interest its discrimination and a violation of our civil rights.
This is win/win for Amazon (prediction) (Score:2, Interesting)