New Kindle Audio Feature Causes a Stir

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Mr. Aiken has a very valid point. In many cases, even the publisher does not have the subsidiary rights to release audio versions.

As for the question about how stupid can publishers and authors be regarding this, the real question is how arrogant can Amazon be? Authors and publishers negotiate specific rights -- be they electronic, print, audio, geographical, whatever. The author owns the rights to all forms of his/her work until the author gives some of them up as a result of contract. Absent specific contractual rights, Amazon is not entitled to distribute audio versions of content created by someone else.

I've never understood why some people think they have an absolute right to whatever they want whenever they want it and however they want it.

It doesn't have someone performing the works. It offers a program that reads in a computer voice. And that is something that can not in ANY way be blocked under US laws pertaining to the rights of the handicapped.

There is a conflict here between the copyright laws for authors and the rights of the handicapped. Under US law the handicapped rights trump those of copyright in this case.

Period.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do blind people have a "right" to use written material? Obviously it's nice if they can do, but it's not a "right", is it?

It is in the United States.

[Ervserver]

whoops....how did Amazon goof this up

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Mr. Aiken has a very valid point. In many cases, even the publisher does not have the subsidiary rights to release audio versions.

As for the question about how stupid can publishers and authors be regarding this, the real question is how arrogant can Amazon be? Authors and publishers negotiate specific rights -- be they electronic, print, audio, geographical, whatever. The author owns the rights to all forms of his/her work until the author gives some of them up as a result of contract. Absent specific contractual rights, Amazon is not entitled to distribute audio versions of content created by someone else.

I've never understood why some people think they have an absolute right to whatever they want whenever they want it and however they want it.

I agree with your statement about rights. And I'm not qualified to offer a legal opinion. But I have a hard time seeing audio rights encompassing a machine reading a text file aloud in a synthesized voice. To me, audio rights means the right to create or license an audio performance for recording and replay.

I suppose this is another one that will be argued or perhaps negotiated at length.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I agree with your statement about rights. And I'm not qualified to offer a legal opinion. But I have a hard time seeing audio rights encompassing a machine reading a text file aloud in a synthesized voice. To me, audio rights means the right to create or license an audio performance for recording and replay.

I suppose this is another one that will be argued or perhaps negotiated at length.

Voice of sanity

Audio rights and TTS are vastly different things. Actually even audio rights and people reading aloud from a book whether to someone, to themselves or to a large audience are different things.

Where you get into recording and disseminating said readings, it gets trickier, but even there there is room to argue about rights and such.

Honestly, I am astounded that publishers/writers can be so obtuse to put it nicely - see how vilified RIAA is.

The Amazon issue is in itself not that important since I expect any legal attempt will be thrown out of court with possible prejudice, and I do not think obtuseness extends that far, while Kindle boycott threats are self-defeating especially for small presses that do not have an easy chain distribution channel - to fight with Amazon seems suicide to me for any but the largest of the large media corporations

But to see this automatic reflex of "hey I may make an extra penny there and anyway why should the *** get something for me for free", notwithstanding that the reaction may cost you a pound in many other ways is still mind-boggling for me, especially in the era of vilification of big media and angst among publishers....

[Ervserver]

Engadget talking about this today

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/11/k...h-infringe-au/

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by starrigger

But I have a hard time seeing audio rights encompassing a machine reading a text file aloud in a synthesized voice.

So if C3PO were to read your novels at a packed stadium where the robot charged a $5 entry fee to hear his/her machine synthesized voice read Sunborn without your permission and without paying you a royalty fee, you would think that wouldn't violate your copyright and would be OK?

Do I understand correctly that the position being taken by those who think Amazon is within its rights is that as long as it is a machine voice rather than a live being it is OK? No matter how good a voice it is? (Think Hal in 2001.)

If so, then perhaps the way to resolve matters for the consumer is to have Amazon or someone else record books using mechanical/robotic voices to read the text and then distribute them free over the Internet to anyone interested. After all, if Amazon's system doesn't violate copyright, this shouldn't either. Do you think JK Rowling would agree?

[Phogg]

Here is the relevant statute, for those who wish to examine it.

[pdurrant]

Amazon is not distributing audio versions of content for the text to speech feature. It is distributing text, which is being converted into speech programatically. It is clearly fair use when done for personal use.

Originally Posted by rhadin

Amazon is not entitled to distribute audio versions of content created by someone else.

[pdurrant]

Thhere is a vast difference between text to speech for personal use, and public performance/broadcast of the same.

Are you suggesting that parents reading bedtime stories to their children are violating authors' copyrights? After all, if the children are lucky, it's being read with much better emotion and vocal inflection than any text to speech programme is capable of.

Should parents be forced to buy a spoken word version of a book, and play it at bedtime while pointing to the printed words in the book? After all, reading aloud is an obvious violation of copyright.

Of course not. I'm being absurd. As are you.

Originally Posted by rhadin

So if C3PO were to read your novels at a packed stadium where the robot charged a $5 entry fee to hear his/her machine synthesized voice read Sunborn without your permission and without paying you a royalty fee, you would think that wouldn't violate your copyright and would be OK?

Do I understand correctly that the position being taken by those who think Amazon is within its rights is that as long as it is a machine voice rather than a live being it is OK? No matter how good a voice it is? (Think Hal in 2001.)

If so, then perhaps the way to resolve matters for the consumer is to have Amazon or someone else record books using mechanical/robotic voices to read the text and then distribute them free over the Internet to anyone interested. After all, if Amazon's system doesn't violate copyright, this shouldn't either. Do you think JK Rowling would agree?

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by rhadin

So if C3PO were to read your novels at a packed stadium where the robot charged a $5 entry fee to hear his/her machine synthesized voice read Sunborn without your permission and without paying you a royalty fee, you would think that wouldn't violate your copyright and would be OK?

Not what I said at all. I would call that a performance, quite different from an electronic reader converting text to voice for personal use.

That Engadget article referred to above seems to have a good take on it. Legally I expect that this is a gray area. That's why I said right off that the Guild's statement was not without merit. But I still don't agree with it.

[Lilly]

I hope if they sue, Amazon wins because it could effect more then e-books. My GPS is text to speech, when I'm driving I would rather have the directions read to me instead of me reading it from the screen. Not every GPS have that capability, my old Tom Tom did not but I have a new Garmin bought during the Christmas holidays and it does.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Not what I said at all. I would call that a performance, quite different from an electronic reader converting text to voice for personal use.

That Engadget article referred to above seems to have a good take on it. Legally I expect that this is a gray area. That's why I said right off that the Guild's statement was not without merit. But I still don't agree with it.

It is a gray area in the way that a mall not allowing pets but allowing seeing eye dogs is a gray area.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Phogg

It is a gray area in the way that a mall not allowing pets but allowing seeing eye dogs is a gray area.

What in the world are you talking about? If you're referring to the disabilities act giving certain rights, no one has disputed that. It has nothing to do with the question for the general public.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by rhadin

So if C3PO were to read your novels at a packed stadium where the robot charged a $5 entry fee to hear his/her machine synthesized voice read Sunborn without your permission and without paying you a royalty fee, you would think that wouldn't violate your copyright and would be OK?

This analogy has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

If so, then perhaps the way to resolve matters for the consumer is to have Amazon or someone else record books using mechanical/robotic voices to read the text and then distribute them free over the Internet to anyone interested.

Neither does this one.