New Kindle Audio Feature Causes a Stir

[rhadin]

The earlier thrust was that text-to-speech is rudimentary sound whereas "audio recordings" are done by professionals who give great tone and inflection and because the sound was rudimentary, it was OK. If true, then the C3PO analogy is correct because it is a robotic voice. Either the fact that it is a robotic voice is the determining factor or it is not. If it is, then C3PO can sell tickets; if it is not, then the sound quality makes no difference to whether or not text-to-speech violates an author's audio rights.

But now the thrust has changed from the robotic voice being the distinguishing factor to personal versus public use and whether something is a performance or not. So where is the line? Is it whether money is being charged?

If I let my computer read Sunborn to me, that is OK because (a) it is a robotic voice with little-to-no inflection and (b) for personal use. If 10 of my friends and I are sitting around the campfire, can I use the text-to-speech to read it to us without violating the author's rights? If no, what is the line being drawn?

If the families of my friends join the circle, making us a group of 40, can I use the text-to-speech to read Sunborn to us without violating the author's rights? If no, what is the line being drawn?

Well, the story is so good that the other campers in the area have joined the crowd and there is now a crowd of 100. Nothing has changed but the size of the crowd. Still OK?

And so we sit and listen to Sunborn from beginning to end being read in this robotic voice and just for personal use -- no commercialism at all. Is this OK?

If this were an audio book that I purchased from, for example, Audible.com, as opposed to a text-to-speech conversion of an ebook that I purchased, the campfire crowd could listen without violating the author's rights. Is there no distinction between the two? Does buying the ebook mean that the author has given me both visual and auditory rights?

[starrigger]

Jeez, it's not like I was trying to give a perfect definition of the distinction. Let the lawyers do that. But here's what I just posted on my blog:

If someone gathered a stadium full of people all with Kindles with Sunborn loaded, and in unison they started a mass read-aloud, with or without my permission, I would think that was...pretty damn cool!

Someone here want to organize that for me?

[jchestnutt]

Originally Posted by rhadin

If I let my computer read Sunborn to me, that is OK because (a) it is a robotic voice with little-to-no inflection and (b) for personal use. If 10 of my friends and I are sitting around the campfire, can I use the text-to-speech to read it to us without violating the author's rights? If no, what is the line being drawn?

If the families of my friends join the circle, making us a group of 40, can I use the text-to-speech to read Sunborn to us without violating the author's rights? If no, what is the line being drawn?

There are specific rules for "public performance" versus home use. Here's what a quick google search gave me for U.S. law:

To perform or display a work "publicly" means--

* to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;

* to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

(Title 17, U.S.C., Copyrights, Section 101, Definitions)

But I don't really think the issue here is about public performance at all, it's about their contract and distribution rights. Amazon does not have the right to convert all their books to mp3s and sell them without paying for those audio rights, so is it okay for them so sell a device that does so without paying for those rights? I have no idea.

[pilotbob]

A lawyers take:

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

BOb

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by starrigger

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.

Your suggestion that access for the handicapped is ludicrous.

It is very much the same as attempting to demand that wider doors for wheelchair access ONLY be placed on special busses for the handicapped, rather than every bus. There is not a way for you to make this not so.

And that is exactly how this would play out in court.
Amazon released their player with software the handicapped require built in.

Suggesting that they do not have a right to offer this vital service on their machines since not everyone needs it is a stretch. You are not going to get any where trying to twist this monotone computer voice into not being simply a standard solution for the handicapped you will get nowhere. I will even lay odds that they simply licensed existing code for that purpose and grafted it in.

It should be fairly simple to find out.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Your suggestion that access for the handicapped is ludicrous.

I never made any such suggestion.

[starrigger]

A blog reader pointed out to me that anyone can listen to my books right now with Adobe Reader. I gave it a try. Augghh. Yes, you can. If you have a visual handicap and have no better option, I'm sure it's better than nothing. But it was pretty painful.

For comparison, I tried listening to another book in Microsoft Reader. It was only slightly less painful.

But it forces the question: why is the Kindle's capability any different from these others? And--maybe somebody has mentioned this and I missed it--do the same blocks work, if a book is in secure format (which it will be on a Kindle) and read-aloud is disabled?

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by starrigger

And--maybe somebody has mentioned this and I missed it--do the same blocks work, if a book is in secure format (which it will be on a Kindle) and read-aloud is disabled?

So far as I know, no version of MobiPocket Reader has ever had read aloud capability and so there may not be an entry in a MOBI ebook's "rights" table for read aloud.

[Ervserver]

If I were a writer I wouldn't want my books read by that creepy voice.

Originally Posted by starrigger

A blog reader pointed out to me that anyone can listen to my books right now with Adobe Reader. I gave it a try. Augghh. Yes, you can. If you have a visual handicap and have no better option, I'm sure it's better than nothing. But it was pretty painful.

For comparison, I tried listening to another book in Microsoft Reader. It was only slightly less painful.

But it forces the question: why is the Kindle's capability any different from these others? And--maybe somebody has mentioned this and I missed it--do the same blocks work, if a book is in secure format (which it will be on a Kindle) and read-aloud is disabled?

[starrigger]

The Authors Guild statement on the question is now online.

While I don't agree with the conclusions, I don't think you can call it a kneejerk reaction, either. The long-term issues for writers who have significant audiobook presence may be different from those who don't, and who just want to get their books out there as widely as possible.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by starrigger

The Authors Guild statement on the question is now online.

If authors want to contractually limit Amazon from reading aloud their ebooks, that sounds ok to me. However, the following struck me as strange:

A Wall Street Journal article quoted a portion of an interview with Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken regarding the Kindle 2. The remarks have been interpreted by some as suggesting that the Guild believes that private out-loud reading is protected by copyright. It isn't, unless the reading is being done by a machine. And even out-loud reading by a machine is fine, of course, if it's from an authorized audio copy.

Take the example of a print book. Is the guild really saying that hand transcription of the text for personal use is legal but scanning and OCRing it "by machine" for personal use is protected by copyright? Both seem to me to be entirely legal in the US. How is this different in the ebook case? Would it be legal to read out loud a paper book "by machine" for personal use?

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

If authors want to contractually limit Amazon from reading aloud their ebooks, that sounds ok to me. However, the following struck me as strange: Take the example of a print book. Is the guild really saying that hand transcription of the text for personal use is legal but scanning and OCRing it "by machine" for personal use is protected by copyright? Both seem to me to be entirely legal in the US. How is this different in the ebook case? Would it be legal to read out loud a paper book "by machine" for personal use?

I would say that they appear to be using the same sort of lawyers as the RIAA.
Same reasoning and mentality exhibited throughout. It reminds me very much of the RIAA's attempt to prohibit sales of chip recording players like the RIO entirely.

Same road, same destination.

[Liviu_5]

Now we know the secret: the Author's Guild practices machine discrimination

[NavyDad6]

Greed.

That is the driving force behind the Author's Guild. The fear is that this technology will eat into audiobook sales. Right now there are four different profitable versions of books: Hardback, Paperback, Audio Book and E-Book. If the Kindle 2's technology combines Audio Books and E-Books then that will reduce the revenue stream.

Of course the impact is negligible now, but the Guild is looking down the road a bit when E-books become a major segment of the market.

IMHO.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by NavyDad6

Greed.

That is the driving force behind the Author's Guild.

Dingo's kidneys. "Greed" for writers to want to be paid royalties for their work? I happen to think it's a misdirected strategy, but calling it greed is just fanning the flames on the other end, and nonsense besides.

Right now there are four different profitable versions of books: Hardback, Paperback, Audio Book and E-Book. If the Kindle 2's technology combines Audio Books and E-Books then that will reduce the revenue stream.

Of course the impact is negligible now, but the Guild is looking down the road a bit when E-books become a major segment of the market.

This part I agree with.