Amazon Caves on Text-To-Speech

[Ervserver]

Members of the guild are listed on the Guild's website, I think concerned Kindle owners should send their complaints directly to the members. Members are listed with links to their websites, on those sites are contact email addresses. Stephen King is one.

http://www.authorsguild.org/news/member_websites/a.html



,

[kacir]

If I was a Kindle user I would be VERY wary of any firmware update.
Who knows what functionality they [Amazon] decide to remove next?

Is it possible to disable automatic firmware updates on Kindle 2?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by kacir

If I was a Kindle user I would be VERY wary of any firmware update.
Who knows what functionality they [Amazon] decide to remove next?

Is it possible to disable automatic firmware updates on Kindle 2?

But they never mentioned they would disable the TTS feature of the Kindle...

Therefore, we are modifying our systems so that rightsholders can decide on a title by title basis whether they want text-to-speech enabled or disabled for any particular title

The feature will be removed from the books themselves. Fictionwise has that possibility (for the author/publisher) for as long as I can remember (that is, to turn TTS off)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am a firm believer in the need for copyright laws, but I am absolutely not a believer in preventing people from format-shifting, for their own personal use, content that they've legitimately bought. However, the other side of the coin is that I am a firm advocate of very severe punishment for those who upload such material to the internet illegally. "Trust" has to work both ways: publishers should trust customers to use the content they buy in a responsible manner, but those who abuse that trust should be severely punished.

I do not trust people that respect ridiculous laws. I think it is a contradiction to say that a law is ridiculous and then telling people they should respect the law. And you are coming across as doing that (which migh be careless reading of what you are writing).

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not trust people that respect ridiculous laws. I think it is a contradiction to say that a law is ridiculous and then telling people they should respect the law. And you are coming across as doing that (which migh be careless reading of what you are writing).

I think Harry is drawing a clear distinction between
a) someone who has bought (licensed) content in one format, and converts it to another format for their own use, which in some countries is an allowed use
b1) someone who has bought content in one format and uploads it to other people
b2) someone who downloads content that they have not bought

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I think Harry is drawing a clear distinction between
a) someone who has bought (licensed) content in one format, and converts it to another format for their own use, which in some countries is an allowed use
b1) someone who has bought content in one format and uploads it to other people
b2) someone who downloads content that they have not bought

Exactly.

[astromusic]

Folks, I think some of you are definitely over-reading stuff into Amazon's announcement. They were very careful to say that they will incorporate a DRM feature that will enable copyright holders to be in the "driver's seat" in terms of restricting TTS on specific books. They never said they will remove the TTS feature from Kindle 2.

I think there is another subtle thing going on here. The AG wanted them to charge $1.75 per book to enable TTS. Amazon are saying, no, you get to disable TTS or enable TTS, but not price differentially. In this manner, I think Amazon is basically setting it up so that it will be unattractive for the copyright holders to disable TTS, and most books will be available with TTS enabled. The announcement so much as comes out and says that. In the meantime, the wind has been taken out of the sails of Author's Guild, which was getting huge mileage in the press (the NYT even ran an op-ed piece titled "Kindle Swindle").

I am actually pretty optimistic about all this.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by astromusic

Folks, I think some of you are definitely over-reading stuff into Amazon's announcement. They were very careful to say that they will incorporate a DRM feature that will enable copyright holders to be in the "driver's seat" in terms of restricting TTS on specific books. They never said they will remove the TTS feature from Kindle 2.

Yes, but you are not thinking it through. IF the Authors Guild didn't want this feature because it would lose them revenue. And Amazon gives them a way to flag content to disallow the TTS feature. Do you not then expect that ALL of the content will be flaged in such a way, this making this be a non-Feature?

BOb

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Yes, but you are not thinking it through. IF the Authors Guild didn't want this feature because it would lose them revenue. And Amazon gives them a way to flag content to disallow the TTS feature. Do you not then expect that ALL of the content will be flaged in such a way, this making this be a non-Feature?

BOb

Who knows how it will be done? I expect that many authors (probably ones who don't have audiobook contracts, anyway) will request that the feature be enabled on their books. I plan to do that on mine.

BTW, agent and ereads founder Richard Curtis commented on the issue today.

Regardless of one's stand on the issue, I think this observation by Curtis is true:

Whether Amazon did or did not have a leg to stand on, the high stakes of a possible rights infringement on the interests of a billion dollar audio industry all but guaranteed litigation.

He also notes that it wasn't just the Authors Guild squawking, it was the audiobooks industry, as well. (But perhaps less publicly?)

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Who knows how it will be done? I expect that many authors (probably ones who don't have audiobook contracts, anyway) will request that the feature be enabled on their books. I plan to do that on mine.

When you say you want "that feature enabled"..

Do you mean the BLOCKING feature or the TTS feature?

You want people to be able to USE TTS on your books?

BOb

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

You want people to be able to USE TTS on your books?
BOb

Er, yes.

[Halk]

An Audiobook is an entirely different thing to TTS.

Perhaps in 5 or 10 years time TTS will be bearable. But at that point we're just paying for the TTS software and the media to "read". Currently we pay a premium for Audio Books because it's a niche market, and it requires a voice actor. The cost of the voice actor needs to be split between far fewer consumers than the formatting for the paperback edition.

I suspect many people who pay for Audio Books do so not because it's read by a voice actor, but because it's much more bearable than TTS, and when it comes to the point where TTS is of good enough quality then many people won't want the voice actor.

So the Author's Guild is trying to protect an unwanted product, so they can profit from it.

It's very much the same as hardback books. Sure some people want a hardback, but many people just buy them because they're willing to pay the extra rather than wait on the paperback. I know any hardbacks I've bought have been because I really wanted to read the book right now. However at least with hardbacks people can wait.

I very much hope this blows up in the Author's Guild's faces. This is pure and simple greed.

I am not condoning people breaching copyright, however I have utterly no sympathy for the Author's Guild if it leads to widespread piracy, because they've artificially created demand for DRM-removal.

I hope any Author's who read these forums, and are represented by the Author's Guild voice their concern over these actions.

Good business is built on selling people the product they want, in the format they want, at a price that suits consumers and producers. It is not built on forcing a more profitable format down consumers throats just because they can.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Yes, but you are not thinking it through. IF the Authors Guild didn't want this feature because it would lose them revenue. And Amazon gives them a way to flag content to disallow the TTS feature. Do you not then expect that ALL of the content will be flaged in such a way, this making this be a non-Feature?

BOb

Will the Author's Guild do the flagging, or will the Publishers?

I think Amazon presented the option of flagging as a way of making the Author's Guild happy without having to pay them any more in royalties. However, whether or not this flag gets used will probably be up to the Publishers, who don't necessarily have the same objections to TTS as the authors do.

[JSWolf]

It would be a lot easier for everyone concerned if Amazon just did away with TTS. Then the legalities of DRM stripping will be obvious.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Will the Author's Guild do the flagging, or will the Publishers?

I think Amazon presented the option of flagging as a way of making the Author's Guild happy without having to pay them any more in royalties. However, whether or not this flag gets used will probably be up to the Publishers, who don't necessarily have the same objections to TTS as the authors do.

Whoever licensed the rights to Amazon will do the flagging. In many cases, that will mean the pbook publisher. In other cases, a separate ebook publisher, or even the author herself.

The Authors Guild advocates for writers' concerns in a general way, but is not a rights-holder and does not represent authors the way a union does (in contrast to the Writers Guild, which for screenwriters does represent script writers as a union). The AG does not negotiate contracts for writers, or represent them individually--though it may lend advice and support.

As to whether publishers have an incentive, that could go either way:

1) They might think this is a great feature that will enhance ebook desirability and sales, and choose to enable TTS.
2) They might look at the contracts they have with their authors, or with subsidiary publishers (such as audio publishers), and say, "Frak, no, this could violate the terms of the contract. We can't say yes." And quietly thank the AG for taking the heat.

Or...they might just leave it up to the individual author and agent to give a thumbs up or thumbs down.

I've already asked my agent to Enable TTS, but if another author feels it's an infringement, I won't think less of her for saying no.