Authors Guild: Contracts forced Amazon to flip on Kindle

Update 2:49 p.m. PST: to include comment from Amazon.

Paul Aiken and the Authors Guild aren't gloating.

The executive director of the 9,000-member guild isn't taking all or even most of the credit for Amazon's abrupt about-face on Friday. The retailer announced that it would allow publishers to disable the Kindle 2's text-to-speech feature on any titles of their choosing.

He says while Authors Guild managers were "vocal" with their objections to the Kindle's speech technology, including publishing an op-ed piece in The New York Times, much more powerful entities were leaning on Amazon to make changes: large book publishers.

There was one more reason Amazon was prompted to make changes, according to Aiken.

"Amazon realized the magnitude of the contractual problem," Aiken said Monday morning. "Many of the author's publishing contracts give publishers the right to publish e-books, but only without enhancing audio. A reasonable reading of those contracts shows that publishers didn't have the authority to sell e-books for use in a Kindle device with audio enhancement."

"What you have to keep an eye on is that text-to-speech may be more valuable in the mobile market. If screens on many of these devices are too small for a good reading experience, text-to-speech may be an important application."

--Paul Aiken, Authors Guild executive director

An Amazon spokesman denied being pushed into Friday's decision. As for whether contractual issues played a part, the spokesman repeated what the company said Friday: "Kindle 2's experimental text-to-speech feature is legal."

Aiken began criticizing Amazon soon after the Kindle 2's debut last month. He argued that the retailer was violating the author's copyright and was cutting them out of a potentially new and lucrative market.

On Friday, Amazon announced it would reconfigure the Kindle 2's systems to allow publishers to disable the text-to-speech function for titles of their choosing. However, the retailer made it clear in the announcement that it believed text-to-speech did not violate copyright.

The controversy has irked some Kindle owners, as well as people both for and against strong copyright laws.

Many tech fans interpret the complaints of the Authors Guild as the latest attempt by creators to control information. Aiken and copyright advocates say it's the responsibility of the guild and authors to ensure they get a fair share of revenue they help produce.

"We're relieved by Amazon's decision," Aiken said. "It's hard to get paid for your content online for digital uses. We have to get things right in these emerging markets. There has to be reasonable ways for authors and creators to get compensated.

"Amazon's move is a good first step," Aiken continued. "We got a ways to go. We believe that text-to-speech should be available but this isn't just about the Kindle. What you have to keep an eye on is that text-to-speech may be more valuable in the mobile market. If screens on many of these devices are too small for a good reading experience, text-to-speech may be an important application. We just want to make sure authors are fairly compensated."

Aiken said perhaps in the future, text-to-speech will be bundled with audio books. He suggested someone could buy an audio book and purchase text-to-speech for say, an extra $1.75.

The question I had for Aiken was how the clause about limiting the rights for audio enhancement was inserted into some agreements?

He said one major publisher in particular had the foresight to include the clause into contracts with book distributors. Aiken declined to name the publisher.

[davidwb]

I predict the day will come when book publishers and the guild will look back on this matter and realize it was when their industry started down the same tubes that the music industry did. When an industry treats its customers with disrespect, seeing them only as an income stream, it is the beginning of the end. I hope the industry comes to its senses and realizes this was the wrong fight at the wrong time and backs off. I don't expect it to, but I can hope.

[daniel hobbs]

i'm looking forward to when these drop in price.

[pawnT]

They will be able to squeeze a few more pennies out of blind people now, keeps them buying audio books at ridiculous prices.

[sperry04]

It will be interesting when Amazon gets sued for discrimination of the blind.

[E B]

I've heard by people who would know such things that there are already special programs for the blind, where books are read out loud by volunteers and recorded, and made available exclusively to them. Books that aren't available commercially as audio books are available to the blind this way. I think the Library of Congress is involved in the process, although I'm not certain.

[mclaurin10]

The thing is that the Library of Congress audiobooks are on cassettes that can only be played in cassette players (whens the last time you saw one of those) and while the LOC does provide a player its about 9 lbs and pale yellow and about 1 foot tall, 6 inches long and 4 inches wide.

The LOC isnt a really great source for audiobooks for the blind, the readers are, obviously because they are just volunteers, arent very good, and the cassette idea is a bad one.

I am someone who is legally blind (my vision is 20/800) and prefer to buy audiobooks because of the connivence of having them on my iPhone.

Lastly the thing about this text to speech feature of the Kindle is that it will never out-do produced and performed audiobooks, its a clunky computer reader, these publishers need to get a taste of reality. As a visually impaired person I want a Kindle because I can make the text much larger without getting a huge large print book, the text to speech feature would just be a nice add on.

[Maccess]

And there's also non native English speakers who would have been helped by having the machine pronounce the written words for them.

[random truth]

@Mclaurin10
Not to be rude, But how do you use a iphone if your blind?

[MattAtTheLOC]

The Library of Congress via the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped does indeed circulate millions of recordings every year to patrons across the country. However, cassettes are being phased out in favor of Digital Talking Books:

http://www.loc.gov/nls/businessplan/playerdescription.html

Matt Raymond
Library of Congress

[MadLyb]

Just another reason to not buy the new white elephant.

[promontorium]

They obviously don't want to lose out on money for audio books. But seriously, that's like complaining that someone is selling a text to speech version of a new song, It's junk. Have you heard text to speech software? Even the best programs that sound very lifelike have no life in them, no sensible pause or inflection, or understanding. Getting a professional to read a book is an experience in itself. I'm sure that if people wanted to listen to a whole book on audio, they would much rather have a real person read it. Have the text to speech standard, and have an option to bundle the audio book version! No one loses.

[E B]

They aren't worried only about today's technology -- what about tomorrow's? So today's text-to-speech is awful -- if they let it go now as okay and set a legal precedent, then what happens in 10 years when you can have James Earl Jones read any book you want, with appropriate tone and inflection, all through text-to-speech conversion? It wasn't that long ago that talking on a cell phone was science fiction, and ANY form of text-to-speech was fantasy.

[paulej]

Text-to-speech does not have the same quality as recording of a real human reading it. But, it does offer one great value: it allows blind people to read books, papers, blogs, or other material that was previously inaccessible to them.

I can see a lawsuit in the making. I see absolutely no good reason, business or otherwise, to deliberately disable functionality that would be beneficial to those who need assistive devices in order to access information.

[RMarch]

This is taking everything one step too far. I agree with Amazon - this is legal rgardless of the contracts.

Not sure if anyone has looked at this angle yet, but in my view this comes very close to infringing on my constitutional right to privacy. If I purchase a book I purchase the right to consume that content for my personal use.

Flip the story around and you can see that the argument makes no sense (other than pure financial benefits - which do not justify the legality). If I purcharse an audio book and then transcribe the entire book with a pen and paper (note I am not typing it to keep this very simple) and read it back to myself - is this illegal? If I never share or use that handwritten copy for anything beyond my own personal reading. The point is, my rights to privacy should protect the way in which I use this legally purchased content.

You should not have caved Amazon.

If authors are more interested in money than the dissemination pf their work and ideas, they ought to have looked for a career in Wall Street (and venture to loose if their bets were wrong!). The whole thing is bogus and the only victim are the readers, who now have to tolerate not only hungry publishers but greedy authors and their greedier unions! So much for the spiritual aspect of the creative arts...

[lxdollarsxl]

Well authors apart from the very well known get very little from the sale of a book, would you whatever you do for a living like to have what you earn be reduced because your company uses some technology to reduce it? Authoors are in general not greedy they like to eat too.

[unknown unknown]

I will just opt not to buy it. I do the same thing for games with DRM, I just don't buy.
I would encourage others to do the same. They need you more than you need them.

[7aji88]

gotta love publishing industry. music, movies, books, etc...
When the first book was printed, people were amused that finally they can get books for cheap. Now we are going the opposite way with DRM and IRA. You bought a book, but hey why not buy an e-book version as well with an audio version too. I mean we have the technology to spread knowledge, but those greedy people won't let it out without a high price. At least the internet is still kind of free from them.

[xenotar]

It is a shame that another technology is crippled by the threat of lawsuits. If book publishers had only foreseen past events, where would we be without the photocopier or public library?

Won?t the Kindle issue be moot in a few years anyway? One might predict that a future version of Windows, or Linux, or the Mac OS will enhance their built-in text to speech engines. My crystal ball prognosticates that the new text to speech engines will feature almost natural sounding human speech in a voice of one?s choice

Then, one will be able to hear ANY text file in the car. How? Let the new and improved "Microsoft Sam" do the reading. Send output to the sound recorder to make an audio file. Then burn the audio file to disk for the car radio.

Enhanced voice is going to happen one way or another.

A better way to handle the problem for authors is to rethink the fundamental pricing and revenue distribution model in the publishing industry. Legacy contracts that pay writers extra for audio book rights is the excuse given to stop implementation of an already developed Kindle feature.

There is a better way. Old terms can be dealt with legislatively if need be; and, future contracts will deal fairly with the issue in the framework of the new economic model.

[gordianknots]

If you're mad about it, contact the Author's Guild and tell them (http://www.authorsguild.org/about/contact.html).

[aMUSICsite]

They will back down, it's only a matter of will it take days, week, months or years.

And the benefit to the writers will be about 0.0001% which will never match the value lost through bad press and the silent boycott of authors who block the spoken option.

[sumobaba]

What about those of us that purchased the Kindle 2 because of that very function? I wonder if I can get part of my purchase price returned.

[ihadanidea]

Keep in mind it's not just folks with visual impairments that benefit from audible text. English language learners, as has been pointed out, also benefit. But what about the millions who are functionally illiterate? Audible text can not only provide them access to reading material, but also help to improve their reading by matching sound and visual stimulii. And what about the millions of people with learning disabilities? True, audiobooks are available from the Library of Congress, or from organizations such as Recordings for the Blind & Dyslexic or Bookshare.org. However, you have to provide proof that you are disabled (a hoop, though usually a minor one) AND the number of books and the time availability of those books are limited.

The text to speech function of the Kindle provided everyone, regardless of disability, language acquisition, or literacy, the ability to read at the same time, with the same materials, and with the same cool factor as everyone else. (Ok, everyone who could afford it, but that's another issue.) I find it incredibly sad that this step forward for equal access has been taken a bit aback.

[skrubol]

Why are the words the author wrote more valuable if they can be read by a computer? Why is the author due an extra $1.75 if the book can be used with text to speech? Next are they going to tell us we can only read a book (or watch a DVD, etc,) on certain days of the week, unless we add on the weekend upgrade?
It's hard to find analogies for this, because it's so odd of a restriction.

[lxdollarsxl]

Depending on how you publish dictates what is paid to an author. Publishing companies will only publish something that they know there is a big return for them not the author. If you self publish doing all the work including the cover and setting out etc etc, the price you can charge for what might be a years work is less than 15% of the cost that it is sold at. Even when bookstores reduce the price of a book by 50%, they still get more than twice the amount the author gets. This will be the same if produced in audio the author will not get $1.75 more like 15 cents. As for the authors guild, who do they talk for - not for all authors just the ones who are well known, who make a lot of money out of their work.

[shelob001]

First, to Matt Raymond, yes, the Library of Congress is doing everything it can with to move to digital talking books which can be downloaded as swiftly as possible. But the system is hampered by having it's budget cut after the fact by the federal government, funds that are too limited to begin with, and the sheer bulk of the materials to be converted over time. You all are doing a great job with what you've got to work with, but it would have been great to have this option continue as well.

For a few months, the blind were on a par with everyone else when it came to getting print materials for the same price and at the same time and with equal access. Now that parity has been removed. It can make one quite bitter. When talking about past e-books read on computers or pda's with Microsoft Reader or Adobe Reader, for some reason, the tech allowed those with TTS access to also print the whole book. A serious piracy concern. But, like the new system organized by the Library of Congress, the Kindle2 device was necessary to access the books; they could not be accessed on the computer, so this concern was eliminated.

Additionally, for the Author's Guild to group TTS and Spoken Audio as similar or on a par with each other is idiotic. It's taken decades for the audiobook market to develop, and that, only because the experience of spoken audio is a performance. i seriously doubt that the market for TTS will ever reach similar proportions or be able to demand similar prices.

But to REQUIRE those of us who do use TTS due to physical disability, learning disability, language barriers, or illiteracy to fork over the high prices demanded for spoken audio performances in order to access TTS technology is obscene.

--shelob001