Amazon Caves on Text-To-Speech

[cjschmidt]

I'm going to disagree...

This is actually a pretty slick move by Amazon. The Author's Guild wanted them to cave and buy them off. Amazon isn't giving them more money - they're handing them the rope the ADA & public opinion will hang them with. Once the mythical AI supercomputer is built that can perfectly understand & read literature (and fit in a 1/3" device) - they can exercise their power. Until then... the first publisher with the balls to flag their content is a greedy company that hates disabled people (at least, that's how it will look).

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by cjschmidt

I'm going to disagree...

This is actually a pretty slick move by Amazon. The Author's Guild wanted them to cave and buy them off. Amazon isn't giving them more money - they're handing them the rope the ADA & public opinion will hang them with. Once the mythical AI supercomputer is built that can perfectly understand & read literature (and fit in a 1/3" device) - they can exercise their power. Until then... the first publisher with the balls to flag their content hates disabled people.

From the way the press release is written, I think Amazon is going to flag everything by default.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by astromusic

Ahem.... can you give this clueless person a pointer on how one might go about removing DRM?

I was completely BUMMED out about this news and seething about Author's Guild, but this news cheers me up considerably!

We don't openly discuss it because it encourages the pirates, and they annoy the hell out of me. Hopefully someone will discuss this with you privately.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I'm surprised. I thought Amazon had a solid position, both legal and contractual.

I think it's safe to say that they did not have a solid position. Does anyone really think they pulled back on a major marketing coup in order to make rights holders feel "more comfortable"?

I think I just saw a pig fly by, outside my window.

I have to admit, I've pretty much come around to the Guild's position on this--which I initially opposed--not on general copyright grounds, but because of the likely violation of huge numbers of individual publishing contracts, which grant or withhold carefully defined rights. I think Amazon finally realized that they should have talked to people first and found out what they could or could not do without encroaching on contractual rights.

That said, I hope they find a way to work it out satisfactorily, and soon--because I think it could help sell ebooks. But that might be difficult, because many publishers of ebooks might not have the rights themselves.

But there is an upside. There is an exception to the DMCA that allows for DRM removal of ebooks that have TTS ability disabled. The K2 jeopardized the exception becuase it had TTS for all ebooks. Now that it doesn't, I can legally remove DRM from my ebooks again.

Cool.

[thibaulthalpern]

This really doesn't make much sense to me. What about people who need text-to-speech function such as the poorly sighted? On a Mac, you can have almost any text read out to you if needed. Not every book is available in audio format so I think it's good to have this text-to-speech function, especially for those who have sight issues.

[Ervserver]

huh..how does Amazon's text to speech help deaf people?

This really doesn't make much sense to me. What about people who need text-to-speech function such as the deaf or heard-of-hearing? On a Mac, you can have almost any text read out to you if needed. Not every book is available in audio format so I think it's good to have this text-to-speech function, especially for deaf people.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Does anyone really think they pulled back on a major marketing coup in order to make rights holders feel "more comfortable"?

Yes, because the amount of content available on the Kindle (because the rights holders have agreed to it) is more a marketing coup than text to speech.

At least in my opinion.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

This really doesn't make much sense to me. What about people who need text-to-speech function such as the deaf or heard-of-hearing? On a Mac, you can have almost any text read out to you if needed. Not every book is available in audio format so I think it's good to have this text-to-speech function, especially for deaf people.

No one has ever suggested that this function be denied to people with disabilities. (I think you meant people with sight problems, not hearing problems.) I don't know exactly what is required for blind people to have access to special books, but whatever it is, there's no reason such a permissions system couldn't be used for the Kindle, also. And I agree--the K2 could be a real boon to them.

[astromusic]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

We don't openly discuss it because it encourages the pirates, and they annoy the hell out of me. Hopefully someone will discuss this with you privately.

No quarrels about that. I did not expect anyone to post any piracy information here. I was just looking for clues as to where I would go about finding information to enable TTS. I know that several people bought the K2 with sight issues (not legally blind, but have other issues that prevent them from reading for a long time) and were hoping that they could read a while, listen a while, read a while again... you get the picture. I think this is a wonderful thing for somewhat handicapped people. If you are completely blind you probably can't use it (because you won't be able to navigate menus) but for the partial cases, you can really manage well with TTS capability.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Boston

Yes, because the amount of content available on the Kindle (because the rights holders have agreed to it) is more a marketing coup than text to speech.

The content available for the Kindle was there before the K2 came along. It's a marketing point, to be sure. But a coup? No. The text to speech is what got the buzz. And undoubtedly cost a lot to develop and implement. I don't believe for an instant that they would have backed away from it if their lawyers hadn't said, "Problem!"

Amazon has demonstrated in the past that they really don't care what the Authors Guild thinks or whether they are offending rights holders. It just sounds a lot better to say, "We want them to feel comfortable."

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by Ervserver

huh..how does Amazon's text to speech help deaf people?

Good point. A slip of the keyboard Meant to say blind or hard of sight.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

So if a DRMed ebook can't be run through TTS software because of the DRM, you can legally remove it. The really cool part is that it doesn't matter why you want to remove the DRM. If a title is available only in eReader, you can remove the DRM. If it is available in MSReader but has the TTS disabled, you can remove the DRM.

Since the text says "when all existing ebook editions of the work" I believe that selling a DRMed version with TTS enabled (maybe at a very high price) automatically makes DRM removal illegal for all other formats.

[Madam Broshkina]

I have experimented with the text to speech feature, not to listen to the book, but instead to use it as an automatic page turner. I turn the sound down low that I can not hear it, turn the speed to fast, and set the Kindle on an easel and can read without pushing any buttons.

[HarryT]

The claim that the DRM disability exemption applies to everybody is highly dubious, and has not been tested in court. If you read the DMCA exemptions, they clearly (IMHO) restrict the right to remove DRM to those people suffering from a disability which requires this. It is not a blanket carte blanche for everybody to remove DRM. Think about it. Why have a law which makes DRM removal illegal, with an exemption which legalises it? Politicians are dumb, but not that dumb.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The claim that the DRM disability exemption applies to everybody is highly dubious, and has not been tested in court. If you read the DMCA exemptions, they clearly (IMHO) restrict the right to remove DRM to those people suffering from a disability which requires this. It is not a blanket carte blanche for everybody to remove DRM. Think about it. Why have a law which makes DRM removal illegal, with an exemption which legalises it? Politicians are dumb, but not that dumb.

I would think that whatever reach the law has, it just shows, once again, how ridiculous DRM is and how it's essentially built upon a house of cards. The mere idea that someone would restrict a piece of data I'd bought farely and squarely is what's dumb about all this.