Kindle 2 under scrutiny

[Eerongal]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/kindles-and-creative-machines-blur-boundaries-of-copyright.ars

The recentley released kindle 2 is under scrutiny by the Author's guild for violating author's rights by having Text-to-speech conversion.

While I'm all for protecting someone's IP, this strike anyone else as kinda...dumb?

[Miyabi]

I think that the argument is completely correct.  Authors make a lot of money off of audio books and by having the program read it they are taking away what someone may have purchased, thus losing the author money.

[Eerongal]

I think that the argument is completely correct.  Authors make a lot of money off of audio books and by having the program read it they are taking away what someone may have purchased, thus losing the author money.

right, but they purchased the book for the kindle. I dont think many people buy the book AND the audio book. Also, an audio book will be read with feeling/emotion. As far as I'm aware, no computer can tell how to read a book with the correct emotion/emphasis to make it exciting.

if anything, it's like a discount audiobook, read in a mono-tone voice. In the end, audiobooks will be superior to this in the firts place, and if you dont buy the book to READ it, but as an audio book reader instead, then you're getting a sub-par service.


edit: Also, there is software you can purchase that all ready does this. It's not illegal, and im sure the authors don't get any money out of it. The kindle just comes with it.

(though i think it's meant as more of a thing for blind people than a "cheap" audiobook program.)

[Miyabi]

If an author signs an agreement to sell 'kindle books' with the understanding that it will be readable by kindle and that being stated int eh agreement then I agree with you.

But if the author signs to sell an 'ebook' as simply just the text, then it is read, I believe that is wrong.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Totally disagree with you, miyabi, but I'll leave the point-making to The Scalzi and note that I left a comment there bringing up another point.

[Eerongal]

If an author signs an agreement to sell 'kindle books' with the understanding that it will be readable by kindle and that being stated int eh agreement then I agree with you.

But if the author signs to sell an 'ebook' as simply just the text, then it is read, I believe that is wrong.

as i mentioned earlier, e-books all ready have software and such for them specifically to convert text-to-speech. Just because it came bundled on an e-book reader makes it no difference than signing up for any other e-book publishing. If you're signing up to have your work made into an e-book, someone, somewhere is going to be using text-to-speech on it, with your blessing or not. That's part of what an e-book is.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Also, normal books have a text-to-speech capability. It's called "reading out loud," and sometimes other people listen to you read without buying their own copy.

[The Jade Knight]

Frankly, I think the obsessive control we authors (and especially the publishers) try to place on our works these days is ridiculous.  There is reasonable, and there is unreasonable.  This crosses over into unreasonable.

Given the nature of text-to-speech as a disibility tool, this may actually be discriminatory, and may be grounds for a lawsuit.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Well, blind people who have commented on the issue have mentioned that the rest of the Kindle's operation is not particularly blind-accessible—basically, someone else would have to start the thing talking for them. (I'm not clear on the details.) So it may not actually be useful for blind people—and people who just can't see very well can easily make the text huge. So the actual point of the text-to-speech feature is not immediately obvious.

[Silk]

I'm actually a little bit conflicted on the issue, but I'm leaning towards the points of view that Scalzi and Neil Gaiman have already expressed.

And I've gotta agree with Jade, this obsessive need to control ZOMG EVERYTHING is, well, a little ridiculous.

[The Jade Knight]

In this case, it may simply be a matter of another bell or whistle for the Kindle 2.  But I meant in the general matter of authors trying to forbid text-to-speech via the DMCA.

[Miyabi]

Frankly, I think the obsessive control we authors (and especially the publishers) try to place on our works these days is ridiculous.  There is reasonable, and there is unreasonable.  This crosses over into unreasonable.

Given the nature of text-to-speech as a disibility tool, this may actually be discriminatory, and may be grounds for a lawsuit.

This is a really good point that I hadn't though of.

[Silk]

I think this is probably one of the better choices Amazon could have made.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I am shocked that they caved and hope they reconsider. It sets a very bad precedent.

I can't find info on whether this is an opt-in or opt-out system.