Amazon misread book sector on speech feature

Jeff Bezos and staff should have seen the text-to-speech controversy coming.

(Credit: David Carnoy/CBS Interactive)

Amazon chose to keep secret from much of the publishing sector the text-to-speech feature built into the Kindle 2.

Instead, Amazon sprung the feature on publishers and the retailer is now taking public-relations hits that it might have avoided if it hadn't been so tight lipped.

Following the debut of the Kindle 2, the 9,000-member Authors Guild claimed text-to-speech created a derivative work and violated copyright. Paul Aiken, the guild's executive director said many publishers were also angered over the speech function, adding that Amazon never consulted beforehand with either of those groups. Amazon responded Friday by handing publishers the ability to disable the text-to-speech feature on any title they choose.

Amazon's response has disappointed some customers, who are left with the impression that the retailer is unwilling to go to bat for them.

This is exactly the kind of public relations blunder that Amazon can ill afford as it attempts to breathe life into the digital-book market. In this endeavor, who can argue that Amazon isn't off to a great start?

The Kindle is a hit. The e-reader has been blessed by the doyenne of publishing herself: Oprah. A Citigroup analyst recently estimated that Amazon sold 500,000 units last year. He also predicted that the Kindle would generate $1.2 billion by 2010. That number didn't include book sales.

Amazon might have avoided the controversy, had the company enlisted the counsel from important constituents in the publishing industry before launch. This way they could have a) learned about the objections quietly; b) done any haggling there and maybe come to a financial arrangement; c) scrapped the whole idea of text-to-speech if there was too much push back.

Hindsight is 20/20, sure. It's easy to tweak Amazon for failing to see the problem coming. But how are execs handling the controversy now?

"Kindle 2's experimental text-to-speech feature is legal," Amazon said in a press release issued on Friday, announcing the company would give publishers the option of disabling text-to-speech on any title. "No copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given."

If Amazon believes those things, some will argue (certainly those in the anticopyright crowd) that the company should take a stand--if not for its own sake than on behalf of customers.

Fighting a potentially expensive and prolonged legal battle with suppliers is a lot to ask of Amazon or any other company. Perhaps if text-to-speech were a vital or much-loved feature, then Amazon would be more apt to hold the line. But it's not.

Text-to-speech isn't going to threaten audio books for a long time. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of Andy Aaron, an IBM expert on text-to-speech and a self described "booster" of the technology.

"I don't think at this point, or for the foreseeable future, (text-to-speech) is going to compete meaningfully with a professional book reader," Aaron said last week. "Am I going to sit down and put my feet up and listen to text-to-speech read 'War And Peace' or 'Harry Potter' for six to eight hours? For someone who has the choice, I think they would rather get an audio book."

For Amazon to be taking heat over this issue is silly. There's not that much in it for the company. Next time, they should take a few more risks with media leaks and get some guidance.

[sodapop2k9]

I completely disagree. The publishers are out of touch with the modern economy.Text to speah is a function not another media format. What Amazon did wrong was cave to dinasaur ignorance rather than dictate the game rules like Steve Jobs would have done.

[simelane]

Yes, Amazon's capitulation is very sad... Clearly Jeff Bezos is no Steve Jobs.

Its at moments likes these, when we have the opportunity to contrast leadership, that we can begin to appreciate what Jobs and his team at Apple have really accomplished for music.

[pjhenry1216]

You mean how Steve Jobs said he was adamantly against DRM on music since the beginning but caved to the RIAA and never removed it for years?

[sharmajunior]

I guess the RIAA and the MPAA will be going after that as well.....(You can't read the book out loud) ....(If the other people hear it they won't buy it) LOL....I know the RIAA and the MPAA has nothing to do with this....But i had to say it.

[karpenterskids]

You're not the only one who's thinking that.
That was the first thing I thought of when I read this article.

"Oh God, here come the RIAA..."
lol

[HlLLARY CLITON]

The point is if Amazon had perhaps discussed this feature ahead of time none of this would have happened, instead it appears Amazon was saying to the publishers screw you we are Amazon and we do what we want. Its not like text to speech is some great newly invented feature and Amazon needed to keep it secret...lets face it having a book read in this was is far from pleasant but Kindle purchasers feel they are suddenly being gyped...which they are not. We don't even know how many publishers will want to lock out this feature yet.

No problem here. Amazon and the publishers simply need to pay the authors their audiobook royalties, but of course are unwilling to do so.

Doesn't anyone wonder what percent of a book an author earns? Especially now that Amazon is selling a $25 hardcover in Kindle ebook format for only $9.99?

You would feel differently if it were your paycheck being screwed with

[iphonedied]

I work in speech reco and text to speech - you are dead wrong on this! It's the authors/publishers that are being the pigs here. They want to demand higher royalties for something that is clearly not a performance.

I am making recommendations to several sight disability advocate groups that they call these greedy authors and publishers out in public. These pigs give not one whit for those who cannot see; the authors/publishers are trying to make additional greedy profits off of the sight disabled.

Amazon will be copied in on all of my communications and should be applauded for adding TTS to the Kindle.

[gspira]

What are you talking about? Most authors don't make any less when a kindle version is sold than when a hardcover version is sold. At $9.99 for a kindle book, there's more profit for the publisher and author available (though not for the printers, delivery companies, or bookstores) than there is for a $25 hardcover, thanks to no printing, no shipping, and no returns. Plus, with Kindle books having lower prices, consumers will buy more, and authors can therefore make more money. And no one buys both an audiobook and a hard copy, so if a rare person actually uses the Kindle text-to-audio feature to listen to a book, the author has already gotten paid for the book that was sold.

The only people who have reason to fear this technology are people who make their living as the voices of audio books. And they certainly have nothing to worry about on that score in the near future.

There are losers here, but authors do not belong in that category.

This whole discussion is absurd. Worrying about piracy is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

[rapier1]

Yes, we should only support authors that don't care about money and simply do it for the art. When you find some of people (that are actually worth reading) please let me know.

[gabeheim]

It's not a question of whether publishers want to lock it out or not. The question is that publishers want to interpret archaic provisions of copyright law (even a 20 year old provision is archaic today) in order to restrain what people can do. If someone reads a book aloud to another person, will the copyright holder sue that person? If so, then what distinguishes the kindle from a human being? Secondly, why are they allowed to put a prior restraint on a digital device. I am not required to wear a gag before I am allowed to pick up a book. Will they start requiring that next? Put a clause that says: You may not read this book without wearing a gag in case you may read it aloud? Copyright holders, unfortunately, are doing an all too good job of convincing people that they are just terrible and evil fascists, rather than conservatively making their case. The Guild (mafia) has just proven that they want to be seen as more ridiculous than the RIAA.

[rapier1]

That's idiotic. I mean really. Reading a book out loud is *not* a copyright violation and no one is arguing that it is. The heart of the issue the mechanical auditory reproduction of a work. While the quality of these reproductions does not compare with professional audio books this may not always be the case. The publishing industry is trying to get ahead of the technology so its not fighting a rear guard action 5 or 10 years from now.

[tal987]

Like many others, I believe Amazon did the right thing. The publishers and Authors Guild have no right to say who or what reads a book that has been legally purchased. The special interests are trying to stretch the copyright laws too far and must be stopped.

[sandonet]

Tal987,
Just a point of fact. Amazon has since given the authors and publishers the ability to disable the text-to-speech function. If, like you said, special interests must be stopped, Amazon appears satisfied to let others do the stopping.

[mattumanu]

Ok, all incendiary foolishness aside... I'm just wondering, what about closed captioning for the hearing impaired? Isn't the text to speech function similar in nature? When a television show, which is by the way copyrighted, has it's dialog read by a chip in the TV set that then displays the text of the dialog, why isn't that somehow a violation of copyright?

Rather than go into the arguments and counter arguments, I think that Amazon originally included the Text to speech function so that people who are visually impaired can enjoy the product same as those who can see. I believe it's absolutely ridiculous for the author's guild to take this stance. It's elitist of them, it's asinine, tawdry, selfish and in fact discriminatory for them to take this stance.

Sandonet, don't lay this solely at the feet of Amazon. To be honest with you I would never have thought that the author's guild would have cared. But then again, it would seem that money is way more important than art these days, so here's what I have to say to them.

I didn't want to read your damned books anyway. Now I have a reason to tell you where you can stick your prose and while your at it, enter this into your text to speech generator and listen: "F**k you, F**k your books and F**k your tawdry little lives".

[rapier1]

@mattumanu:

Closed captioning is done with the assent of the producers and broadcasters and is actually done by humans. There is no special chip in your TV that converts the dialogue to text. And really, why do you think the author's guild wouldn't have cared? Do you think they just don't give a darn about the audio book market? "Oh no, we don't care a all about lost income from audio book sales. We aren't in this to make money after all. We'd all rather just be waiters and write in our spare time."

[1812dave]

I posted a thread on Amazon's site asking what Kindle2 owners think. Nearly all of them are pissed off, but necessarily at Amazon. Some are ticked at the Author's Guild, while others hold Amazon at fault for touted a feature that may be effectively nullified at any moment. Since I don't own a Kindle I'm not personally effected, but I definitely have my own opinion on this fiasco which is Amazon needs to stick up for it's customers since they originally advertised the Kindle 2 as having the Text To Speech function, albeit it being "experimental". I don't think the "experimental" moniker absolves them of responsibility to provide the feature in the future.

[1812dave]

sorry, I made a typo: second sentence should have read, "...pissed off, but NOT necessarily at Amazon".

[zaxaz]

I suggest everyone that would otherwise buy a book but find it's text-to-speech capabilities disabled, politely return it to it and write the publisher expressing their right to select another book. The only way to convince these idiots we're serious is simply boycott books that have the feature disabled. When the money stops flowing, the feature will be allowed.

[zaxaz]

For publishers to balk at this is ridiculous. If anything, I feel it provides a brief reprieve for one that is reading and wants to relax for a bit. I wouldn't consider use of the feature for any extensive period of time but it does demonstrate how selfish publishers are. Perhaps a blind member of the family could benefit by being able to listen to a book that otherwise isn't available in audio format. For god's sake does everything in this country have to come down to a legal battle about something. We sound like a bunch of whining children.

[iPilya]

I hope... I truly hope that there will now be a class action against what has been done. We ALL know that:

1) Text to Speech is not viable now or in the foreseeable future as a replacement for Audio Books
2) Text to Speech is a vital aspect of Accessibility for those how are visually impaired.
3) There are Text to Speech abilities that are far greater then what the Kindle offers... available today for the computing platform... and this technology has been around for a length of time already.
4) The Kindle is a computing device... and should be classified as such... as all computing/electronic devices need to help fight for the rights of the disabled people and their rights for equality in the modern age.

So let the battles begin now... so we can get this over with... so we can do what is fair and just... where the authors and publishers get their pay where the pay is due and where the public at large, regardless of predisposition can consume the material.

[rmva]

Because the experimental text-to-speech feature is not that good anyway, Amazon doesn't want to get into a big fight now. At his point it is only tolerable for short periods and doesn't match the quality of the rest of tthe Kindle. The bigger questiion if the future of the printed book. The economics of book publishing is so screwed up, it wouldn't take much to tip if over the cliff.

[1812dave]

It may not be a perfect substitute for an audio book, for the visually impaired, it's a godsend. TO deny them access to the visual method of accessing their purchase Kindle media is an OUTRAGEOUS thing for Amazon to be complicit in along with the lame Author's Guild.

[1812dave]

dang it, I messed up writing my last reply. I meant to say "To deny them access to the TTS method of accessing their purchased Kindle media is ...."

[contentcreator--2008]

This is all about the contract, not about what people can or can not do. The publishers licensed the rights to Amazon for distribution to Kindle --- a certain fee for a certain capability. Amazon has changed the terms of that licensing unilaterally, by permitting text-to-speech capability. The text-to-speech capability impairs the value of the publisher's audio-book revenue stream. So this isn't about what you can or can not be permitted to do, it's about whether Amazon can change a contract without the permission of the other signatory -- I don't think anyone want to see that happen.

[wankme]

"Tal987,
Just a point of fact. Amazon has since given the authors and publishers the ability to disable the text-to-speech function. If, like you said, special interests must be stopped, Amazon appears satisfied to let others do the stopping."

No one is going to stop anything yo....As we plunk down our irrelevant takes on this article they spray chemtrails over our cities and population centers. Type it in on you tube folks. Educate yourselves about how screwed we really are. Capitalism must eventually turn and eat itself alive. Neither is mankind in it's current state capable of embracing any more altruistic system, but we are going to have to transform ourselves individually and, then, collectively to avoid worse states to come. These days can either be the dusk, or the dawn for our little experiment here. No one wants to talk about a human population outstripping the planets ability to provide for it. We cannot even get simple consensus that spiking our water with fluoride is an anti social regime with real discernible and EXTREMELY NEGATIVE side effects. The perpetrators of the largest financial swindle in human history laugh in our face as four hours of fake contrition before their bought and paid for congress is the only tedious labor involved in recovering their mechanical commercial solvency with your tax money. Tax money that is illegal to collect from you under your own constitution in the manner it is currently taken under duress. Look that up too people. It is easy to find from reputable knowledgeable sources. Your government steals from itself in the form of a huge off the table black budget. It stifles innovation ( see free energy; you tube ) it doesn't ALLOW the corporations to act against advances in technology because they interrupt revenue streams- THAT IS IT'S CURRENT CHARTER !!! Text to speech is just the latest highly observable example of what has been going on for the last fifty years with , battery technology and electric cars, with technologies that convert garbage into fuel oil and gasoline ( see; 400 billion dollar secret ), in the field of consumer electronics and information management, in aerospace, etc... etc... etc... We could and SHOULD be in the stars right now. Our star trek future could have easily been under way but it has been severely incapacitated if not entirely killed so we can watch the tv and then like a pack of hypnotized sheep, go buy the stuff we saw on it. Try; John Hagelin "what is consciousness" for an eye opener. The world you think you live in and the one you ACTUALLY do are two completely different things and it is not because you are stupid that you might have missed it. Too many powerful opposing forces have controlled the parameters of the road of your own awareness to make it a fair fight. We have to do something different now my brothers and sisters.... Who cares about the kindle2.... it is only going to keep you in your cocoon in the matrix......

[LNS2]

Speaking of contracts, what about the contract Amazon has with each of us who has bought a Kindle2 - I bought mine the day before the announcement that there would be limitations, if not deletion altogether, of that advertised and promised feature?

[pkb4238]

I am not a lawyer nor have I parsed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, so please help me understand why the TTS capability is such an issue. I have read that some say it is a derivative work and deserves protection. No, it is not stored as a separate file, it is simply another way to access a file I have purchase. If you follow that article to its logical conclusion, then reading the book aloud would incur a copyright violation.

To those who say it eats into the audio book revenue, how so. DO we know how many users actually buy two copies (hard copy - audio copy) of the same work. If it is as few as I suspect, then the basic work has been purchased and is now mine to read aloud or not. Why does teh publisher now expect another royalty payment?

This sounds suspiciously like the recording industry's failed argument that they, and they alone, own a work after it has been purchased. And only they can decide how that work is going to be used. Frankly, I I have paid for a book and are using it for my own personal enjoyment, I don't need anyone's permission to read the hard copy or listed to the TTS. After all, I paid for it and it is the same book no matter how I chose to enjoy it.

Has either the publishing industry or the recording industry ever considered that if they promoted better quality works then their revenue stream would increase. Based on some of the recent books I have tried to read, I think the issue they face in not derivative works, but rather quality works.

[ericyen]

*** how is the text-to-speech feature functionality different that then one that might be used for the visually impaired? What Bezos should of done is reposition the situation and show a visually person enjoying a book using text-to-speech feature. I have a Kindle 2 and text-to-speech feature is robotic at best. My GPS sound better than my Kindle 2. If RIA, MPAA and authors really think this way then they all need to go down to the local Borders or Barnes and Nobels and stop the reading time for little children.
Books are for spreading stories, information and experiences. Yes, authors should make money on their work. But the I believe that the Kindle 2 is a disruptive technology and as such a new paradigm for revenue sharing needs to be establish so that all are compensated fairly. Bezos doesn?t have to pay for physical storage for warehouses and shifted some of that cost into IT infrastructure. Authors need to know that the distribution of content has change. Watch out old school publishers your going out like the music publisher and you can?t fight progress.

[expatincebu]

Copyright and patent laws are completely out of control. They were originally created to protect and encourage innovation, now they have been made to do the opposite. I urge everyone not to pay for any digital material.

[kbingham1]

This article enlightened me. I didn't completely understand what how the disabled feature would work initially.
Now I see the publisher of the particular work downloaded to the unit can disable the speech. So, now I have to, before I select a title, try to figure out if I'll be fully functional or not with my unit! UGH!

I was going to get one, but with that, no way.
Many of the audio books I wish to read aren't available--I like a lot of different books, all of the non-fiction--generally science oriented or even programming books.
I've already gotten all of the Audible.com audiobooks I'm really enthused about...
There's a very limited selection of audio books frankly. Yeah, if you want to read detective stories or biographies of modern people. Sure...but I couldn't care in the least. Maybe I want to read an unpopular book they'd scarcely bother with. I see many books published by Richard Dawkins in fact, which are not available at Audible.com, that'd I'd love to be able to have read to me while I drive to work each day.

Anyway...glad that's cleared up. If they can instantly disable the text to speech on a book I want, then definitely they can eff off.
I'm very disappointed because I was going to order one. When I'm reading something deep, naturally, I prefer a book over an electronic device: studying the same page over and over...walking around with it...with an electronic device running low on a battery, this would not work, I think. I would always be wondering about that.

What made this special was the ability to put the unit shotgun on my drive to work and listen to a voice, even if it's robotic, keep my brain flowing.
Bummer!
I hate it when something is poorly resolved like that. I could get one, but then I have to go to all of this trouble to figure out if the books I want will have disabled speech! Gees, I'm so disappointed.

[kbingham1]

In reply to myself. We'll need krackers to unlock the feature on our units. I would then be interested. If there were a sure fire way to ensure the text to speech capability were always available through a hack then I would be interested.

Just have to do without this fancy device. I could better spend the money on something else. A few real books, I guess and do as I have been: if audible has a good book for my drive, then I'll listen to that. If not, then XM radio will have to do :(

[Anonymous Hero]

Amazon has the legal resources to defend its position on this paramount issue, and it chose not to. I am extremely disappointed. The rights of the disabled community have been trampled.

[tmalus]

The guild's reasoning is at fault here.

Imagine I buy a book then ask my robot to read it for me. All I get from the author (and paid for) is the book itself and nothing more. The author/publisher has no right to interfere with the fact that I ask my robot to read for me.

Kindle just happens to come with such a robot (included in the price of the device, which I paid for).

Human stupidity has a bound. Human GREED has no bound.