Book publishers object to Kindle's text-to-voice feature

Update at 5:30 p.m. PST: Quotes added from copyright advocate Ben Sheffner.

Was your mother a lawbreaker when she read you The Little Prince or Green Eggs and Ham?

That's the question raised Tuesday by the Authors Guild, an advocacy group for writers. Paul Aitken, the group's executive director objects to the text-to-speech feature on Amazon's Kindle 2 digital-book reader. Aitken told The Wall Street Journal: "They don't have the right to read a book out loud. That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law."

Wow. If a computer can't lawfully read a book out loud, do human beings have the right? Amazon and Aitken could not be reached for comment.

Well, mothers of America, never fear. You most certainly do have the right to privately perform copyright work, says Ben Sheffner, a copyright attorney. Sheffner, a well-known copyright advocate, says the issue of whether Amazon's Kindle infringes on intellectual property is not as cut and dry.

Amazon's technology enables a computer voice to read text aloud to owners of the Kindle 2, the next-gen version of reader.

Sheffner said it's unclear whether the text-to-speech feature could be considered a public performance. Under copyright law, if someone profits from, say, a public reading of a copyright work without authorization, they are breaking the law. Someone could argue, said Sheffner, that the Kindle's speech feature is a public performance because it enables scores of people to receive audio of a book. Sheffner added that the counter argument would be that the feature is only enabling lots of different private--and therefore legal--performances.

Jonathan Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School, said he doesn't see how the speech feature violates copyright law if no recorded copy of the book is created. Book publishers often license audio books separately than the text versions.

"The only right really that might be implicated is the so-called public performance," Zittrain said. "But what I want the thing to do is to read to me in the car. I don't see a copy being made so I don't see how this can be Amazon's problem."

The debate could be academic. If the book publishers don't like the feature, they can refuse to renew their licenses with Amazon in the future. And my colleague Ina Fried raised another point. Why would Kindle owners choose a computer voice when they can hear a recording of the author or a professional actor reading the book?

[jumpjetta]

The "mom reading to a child" question is utterly absurd. It doesn't impact the profits of the book, and could never be enforced anyway. It's private and not a public performance. You might even argue its educational fair use.

[declan00]

Enforceability != legality. A mom busy doing some work and allowing a Kindle to read a book to a tot isn't a public performance either; one might even argue it's educational fair use.

If a human reading is fair use, why not a computer reading?

And if a text-to-speech reader is infringing, what about software for the blind?

[nasserd]

Human trafficking is illegal, computer hardware trafficking/retailing is perfectly legal. These are different cosms.

Let's face it, the arguments are empty. TTS is a built-in feature on any disability-supported device (e.g. Windows PC). Should publishers boycott the Kindle 2 then the publishers ought to boycott all TTS-capable devices (digital anything).

Ostensibly, Amazon is providing a means for a reader to hear the pronunciation of a word. If an entire chapter is read aloud, then so be it. If the device is streaming TTS-converted audio, then it's only a hardware platform and in the same realm as any other multimedia device. Either way, there is no wrong in making a piece of hardware available to the masses -- both current and potentially future consumers with disabilities.

[Dalkorian]

by declan00 February 10, 2009 5:42 PM PST
And if a text-to-speech reader is infringing, what about software for the blind?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That was my first thought too, but I guess authors aren't to concerned with blind people - unless they pay more for the audio book that is!

Profits over people. That is the reality today, sad as it is.

[xcal78]

I work with a blind person at work so this would be great for him instead of books on cd's. He uses a software called 'JAWS' for text-to-speech.

Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAWS_(screen_reader)

[CascadianPDX]

We live in an aging population with increasing numbers of people living with conditions like macular degeneration. Both my farther and myself have this condition, an my dad is excited about the possibility of the Kindle2 to give him access to material that is not even available on commercial audio books. For the book publishers to restrict, limit, and ultimately anger an increasing number of potential customers is beyond short sighted--it is stupid. I encourage Amazon to stick to their guns. All interested parties need to sit down and figure out a technological fix that offers fair enough pricing to discourage piracy and allow for a used-book market.

[ewelch]

That's ludicrous. I say sick the American With Disabilities Act on them.

[Mr-Bill-Gates]

ewelch, you are absolutely right. ADA sec. 508 compliance would make it legal. Amazon should indicate that it is a screen reader for the blind.

[shootthecops]

fair use has pretty much died over the last few years. i dont think obamas cabinet is going to make anything better, probably much worse. you can kiss fair use goodbye and we'll have a good old fashioned war between the fascist groups like Authors Guild/MPAA/RIAA and all consumers they deem "pirates" for protecting their rights. Zeig Heil, neo-fascist corporate America.

[aMUSICsite]

See here for reasons why this is stupid.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10159985-93.html

All they want is more money, take their books off the service and let the publishers backing this have a huge drop in profits. Name, shame and boycot them.

[sanenazok]

What kind of copyright law credentials does Paul Aitken have? Sounds like someone spouting off. I know he's scored himself a C-level position, but that isn't saying much. Is he even a published author? A while back, our ex-gov (Illinois) tried to get a C-level position at some charity or union board for his wife in exchange for a senate seat. That kinda shows you how these hacks get their positions. It would be different if the AG actually adopted this as an official position.

[Anome]

OK, so a mother-child, or even mother-children reading is a private performance, and thus does not violate copyright. What about teacher-class readings? (Or even where the students read aloud in the classroom?) Or readings at public libraries during school holidays, where attendance is open to all comers?

Basically, the Kindle is not "performing" the book. The reading will be done by a computer voice with no intonation or inflexion (or at least pretty crappy intonation and inflexion). Not the same thing at all as a decent audio book. What it does provide, though, is an option for those with vision problems who can't afford to keep buying the ludicrously priced audiobooks. (Of course, if that was a factor, then they probably can't afford the Kindle anyway.)

[mikeburek]

But some record companies / artists don't allow the lyrics of their songs to be published. Even though just the words don't come with any music of even the person's voice. And most people who read a song's lyrics do so to help them enjoy the song better.

[polyomino]

"Was your mother a lawbreaker when she read you The Little Prince or Green Eggs and Ham?"

When I learned to read, I read Green Eggs and Ham aloud to our pet cat, Sam. I did it more than once, many times. What's more, I copied the whole text of the book onto large-lined paper. I confess these acts freely and without duress.

[Dalkorian]

Expect Sony's new law firm, Dewey Cheetum & Howe, to come knocking on your door to collect for those public performances. Your cat should have bought it's own copy and read it itself, like the rest of the world. Then the cat (and yourself) should have beat your own brains out with a brick until you forgot having read the story entirely, so you could buy and "enjoy" it again and again.

It's the only way Sony can make it through this down economy while still raping their customers.

[Atlas_]

So far none "the point" has been missed both by the article and the user comments, so it pleases me to point out what this is all about.

Money. selling books makes them money and selling AUDIO books makes even MORE (books on cd usually cost 30 to 40 dollars, the book is only 20). If the kindle or any other ebook reader can just read the book out loud (and sound better than a robot) then it could KILL the audio book money tree.

This has nothing to do with public/private performances, that is just the legal argument being used, but lawyers don't actually care what argument they use as long as the client gets the ruling they want.

[CascadianPDX]

It's about keeping monopoly control over audio content, and that toothpaste ain't going back in the tube. They need to move on and innovate fair solutions or lose it all.

[ScottRiqui]

I would have thought this question would have been answered in the courts long ago, since "reading machines" have been doing text-to-speech conversion for blind readers for years.

[superman227]

This is stupid!!! How about blind people? They rely on either audio books or a computer screen reader program to read them books or pages scanned on a scanner. Amazon's program is fantastic. It would kill the audio book industry slowly though. Audio books have tone and feeling in the reader's voice. Kindle is probably a monotone computer voice from the 80s.

[uhpl508]

How far in the depths of the past are these people? The Kindle reading the book is as derivative a work as burning a page for heat is a derivative work. Computers have had text reading features for years.

[ScottRiqui]

True - I don't think the audiobook industry has anything to fear from the Kindle's new capability.

Imagine having an entire book read to you by your car's GPS, with the same voice for every character in the story, no inflection other than *maybe* raising the computer voice's pitch at the end of a sentence to indicate a question, and no sense of drama whatsoever.

If you're blind, then this may be acceptable (although I suspect the dedicated reading machines for the blind still probably do a better job), but I think most of us would be pulling our hair out by the end of the first chapter.

[Magicland]

Just more greedy scum looking for a free handout. What if the Kindle reads the text perfectly, with nuanced inflection, and sounds just like Morgan Freeman? It's STILL not a public performance and is covered under fair use by current copyright law, even if it does hurt these greedy leech's business model. Just like the idiots in the RIAA have recently attacked radio as "stealing" their product (as if the RIAA has ever even produced a product and aren't just blood-sucking leeching middlemen). Screw 'em all! Just wait until someone figures out how to make a computer write books, and they'll all REALLY be unneccesary.

[maniac42]

The Author's Guild needs to reign their damn lawyers in. Their argument is utterly absurd. Any legal action they propose to take should be treated by the courts for what it is -- a nuisance.

[gefitz]

Hilarious! Mr. Aiken is most certainly NOT a lawyer. Otherwise he would have kept his trap shut. Another attempt by archaic and dying media purveyors to squeeze every cent out of their old ways before finally seeing the light and abandoning them. It's the VCR argument all over and over again, with the same result.

[unknown unknown]

And this is why copyright needs complete over haul, it and it's proponents are out of touch with technology and reality.

[Larry_Smyrna]

I KNOW ONE THING.

(AND DON'T LAUGH)

I can't wait to have the new Kindle read my Jackie Christian "erotica" books to me.

I'm re-buying "Story of a Jealous Birthday Girl" and "UPS GUY" over so just I can
hear ROBO-woman read it back to me.

Hehe

[rclyde]

Being visually impaired I use screen readers all the time, both Apple (with the voice of Alex, very human sounding with breath and inflection) and pc (using zoom text also easy to listen to) I use both in school,I still have to buy the hard copy before I get either an audio format or text on disc. But because of my impairment I do receive audio books from the library of congress for pleasure, this is free to those who qualify, and is part of the ADA

[imhodudes]

Embed a fawking DRMA chip in my cerebral cortex and be done with it.

[john94857]

Unless it actually sounds like human (which it does not quite at this point), what's the big deal. I would prefer to be listening to a real audio book any time.

Anyway, I am very interested in Kindle, but am still waiting for these books to be DRM free. It's just so much easier and "thought-free" when I don't have to worry about DRM and how I use something. The higher the resolution, the better it is too. We are nowhere near true 300-dpi but that's a technical limitation at this point.

Speaking of DRM-free, Amazon does have an awesome MP3 store that is DRM-free with a large selection and often good prices. It would be nice if they had the same thing with books.

On the note about Amazon, I recently came across an interesting table that details the discounts on Amazon at the link below. Maybe someone will find it useful too.
http://www.uberi.com

In any case, Amazon appears to be quite serious this time. We will probably see faster advancements in this area in the near future as competition heats up.

[gsigas]

If someone has purchased the book the author has already been compensated. If the purchaser wants to sit and read the book themselves or have it privately read to them by someone (or a computer) it should fall under fair use. Fair use should allow a purchaser to do whatever they want with the copyrighted work (including transforming it into a different media) as long as it is for their sole personal use. The moment they attempt to share anything, except the original work in the original media, with anyone they should then be limited by copyright, but not before.