New Kindle Audio Feature Causes a Stir

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I agree that if software has the ability to read eBooks to people who need it, the DRM should not take away such a feature. In the USA, it is legal to strip away the DRM so that the read-aloud feature works.

On what grounds is that acceptable?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I agree that if software has the ability to read eBooks to people who need it, the DRM should not take away such a feature.

That's basically the only effective use of DRM though. It does a lousy job of preventing piracy, but it does a great job of restricting consumer's fair use in order to generate additional revenue.

I'm sure publishers would say that DRM restricting TTS is not a problem because disabled people can go out and buy the (more expensive) audio book version.

Corporations have pretty much bought and paid for copyright law in the US, so it's not surprising that this is legal.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... a claim which you carry on making, and which has NOT been validated by any court. I really wish that you wouldn't keep saying this as though it were a definite "fact". It isn't.

It's written right into the DMCA. There are exceptions that allow stripping of copy protection in order to enable use by disabled people.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... a claim which you carry on making, and which has NOT been validated by any court. I really wish that you wouldn't keep saying this as though it were a definite "fact". It isn't.

The Library of Congress can create exceptions to the DMCA. Here:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-5098639.html

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The Library of Congress can create exceptions to the DMCA. Here:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-5098639.html

Those exemptions were only for 3 years and that time as expired.

Dale

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Those exemptions were only for 3 years and that time as expired.

Dale

Here are the current ones:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Here are the current ones:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

thanks, it says: These exemptions went into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006, and will remain in effect through October 27, 2009.

So it seems the disabled are ok for a few months longer. I suspect this is a key part of what the current DRM meetings are all about as mentioned in an earler thread.

Dale

[GeoffC]

Thanks, that is interesting -
(gawd what mangled language - just to say - "yes, Okay, you may circumvent the DRM")...

[Ervserver]

The Engadget Interview: Paul Aiken, Executive Director of the Authors Guild

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/27/t...tor-of-the-au/

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The Library of Congress can create exceptions to the DMCA. Here:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-5098639.html

I am not disputing that there is an exemption permitting DRM to be removed for the benefit of people who need to use TTS systems. I am disputing that this gives carte blanche for everyone to remove DRM, whether they are disabled or not. That "claim" is highly dubious and has never been tested in court.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's written right into the DMCA. There are exceptions that allow stripping of copy protection in order to enable use by disabled people.

Precisely. To enable use by disabled people. If you are not a "disabled person", how can you claim that the exemption applies to you?

[europas_ice]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The Kindle is NOT bringing eBooks into the mainstream. If they were, then the eBooks sold by Amazon would be available for everyone regardless if they had a Kindle or not. So until that happens, Amazon is only doing what's good for Amazon.

LOL, hopefully no one here is surprised by this. They are a business out to make a buck, not a philanthropy. And although it would be nice if such a philanthropy existed, I don't think Amazon is under any such obligation.

[Toshanda]

OK, two things came to my mind when I was reading this whole thread...
1. Somebody mentioned that use of text-to-speech feature on PC or MAC is different from Kindles because not everybody uses it and it takes more steps to get it going... - so does providing a shortcut or a button on the keyborad to make it easier to use makes it illigal to use? in this case Kindle should just stop advertising it and make this feature available with two presses of a button instead of one.

2. On one of the links someone, I think president of AG, said something that caught my attention - something about Audio Books being a billion dollar industry - guess what: there "USED TO BE" ALOT of billion dollar industries, three key words USED TO BE, but I am sure that all those horseshoe makers adjusted just fine, so did all those audio cassette makers... Reminded me about that german publisher who said that ebooks will kill the industry if they lower the price on them.

I think it is one thing to talk about taking a stand for something worth it, but there is always that question of making things better and easier. Does anyone remember that famous phrase "There will never be a flying machine havier than air". Not sure who said it but I bet that an Air Baloon maker could have signed under it back in 1899.

PS If this whole thing sounds confusing let me know I will edit it abit after I wake up tomorrow.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. To enable use by disabled people. If you are not a "disabled person", how can you claim that the exemption applies to you?

The context this was brought up in this thread was about it applying to disabled people. You're the one who is trying to extend it to mean something else so that you can disagree with it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The context this was brought up in this thread was about it applying to disabled people. You're the one who is trying to extend it to mean something else so that you can disagree with it.

No, please read this thread properly from the start before you comment on it. Jon, whose post I was replying to, is of the opinion that the DMCA's exemption clause applies to everybody, regardless of whether or not they are disabled. That has not been tested in court.