Amazon retreats on Kindle's text-to-speech issue
Apparently, Amazon won't fight the publishing industry on the issue of whether the Kindle 2's text-to-speech function violates copyright.
The retailer, which makes the popular Kindle electronic-book reader, announced late Friday that the company is modifying systems to allow authors and publishers to decide whether to enable Kindle's text-to-speech function on a per-title basis.
Amazon began its press release with tough talk. "Kindle 2's experimental text-to-speech feature is legal," Amazon wrote. "No copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given."
But then the company says: "We strongly believe many rights holders will be more comfortable with the text-to-speech feature if they are in the driver's seat."
There is no mistaking what happened here. Amazon caved. For Kindle owners interested in the text-to-speech feature, the device just lost value.
The Authors Guild, a trade group representing 9,000 authors, began criticizing Amazon shortly after the Kindle 2 debuted earlier this month. The guild's president, Paul Aiken, told CNET this week that Amazon was taking a hard-line position in discussions between the guild and the company. He also said there was a possibility that the guild could sue over the issue.
"Anytime you have a new means of accessing content," Aiken said, "there's always some sort of aggregator that wants to control it and keep the value for themselves."
Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocate group for the rights of Web users and technology companies, said he was grateful that Amazon went out of its way to make the point that the company didn't believe text-to-speech technology violated copyright.
"Nevertheless, Amazon decided to allow copyright owners to make the decisions themselves whether to use the feature," von Lohmann said. "They are entitled to do that. The issue of text-to-speech will have to wait for another innovator."
One point that von Lohmann noted was that there are plenty of PCs that offer text-to-speech, and the Authors Guild hasn't objected to those. "Maybe Apple should be looking over their shoulder," he said.
It's easy to understand why Amazon may have back-pedaled. Even the staunchest supporters of text-to-speech say that it won't replace audio books any time soon. Computers can sound like humans but they can't insert emphasis or offer much of a dramatic rendering because they don't yet understand what they're reading--and likely won't for a very long time, say the experts.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
Pretty soon in this economic environment the authors will discover if they want to sell books on this media they better enable the text-to-speech. It took some years but the RIAA is coming to grips that we live in changing times, and business models need to adapt, and WHAT THE CUSTOMER WANTS IS KING. And attempting to create fenced monopolies by any method is bad for customer relations.
Stop buying the kindle and that'll teach Amazon a lesson. Who do they think they are trying to disable features they have put into the device.
Saves us money! Thanks publishers!
While I recommend audible.com (they offer 51,000 titles BTW and growing rapidly) there are many other audio book services out there with books at all price points available for download. It is also possible to buy audio books on CD and rip them into iTunes which can then be listened to on the iPod.
Amazon and Apple are 2 different types of companies and Amazon does incredibly well at what it's supposed to do. Not sure what you mean by follower, since I can't buy books, jeans, watches, coats and millions of other things from Apple. The only thing that makes them close in any category is the new Amazon MP3 store which was DRM free the getgo... something that's taken Apple many years to accomplish.
We've seen Apple do that in the past -- and we just saw Amazon do the opposite. Cowards.
I thought there was a law mandating equal access for the disabled (the ADA or somesuch). Would that apply here?
The WGA was small peanuts and Amazon should have stuck it out and had a court tell them they were in the clear. Now they get to lose money from being attacked by the people with a better case. Amazon and the WGA will both get to look like idiots.
Text to speech is awful but if you are stuck with it or nothing if will do.
And I understand that Samantha is one of the voices that comes with the new Kindle! That is exciting to me.
I wonder if you could use the text-to-speech feature on the Kindle to listen to Project Gutenberg (free) content? That would be great, if the quality of Samantha is as good on the Kindle as it is on a computer.
Up until now the book publishers would have agreed. But now, Amazon has shown it'll back down even if what they have is better for their customers.
I'll go to bn.com more often now.
Have ANY of these copyright holders ever heard of accessibility? My guess is no, since all of them probably have normal eyesight and can read the words placed in front of them. If publishers want to start putting out their content electronically, then they are the ones who are going to have to start changing their ways to make their content available to everyone, not just those with eyesight good enough to actually see the letters in front of them.
Shame on any publisher or author who believes that text-to-speech is a copyright issue!
This makes me wonder if that screen reader in your OS or accessibility browser is illegal then?
- by MagnoliaSouth February 28, 2009 11:42 PM PST
- Let the piracy begin... The incredibly foolisth Authors Guild is going to have a big surprise waiting around the corner for them. Have they learned nothing from the mp3 war? Consumers WILL win, despite their remonstration.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (37 Comments)Let us compare their claims, with the film industry. When a viewer watches a movie on DVD, as a general standard these days, they are given the opportunity to hear audio AND read subtitles. Most even offer audio and subtitles in foreign languages too! They are not trying to make more money off of those who cannot hear as well as the average person, which is what the Author's Guild is trying to do. Authors are trying to prey on the, "visually less fortunate." These are the people who do not qualify for help as the blind do, but who still cannot read the words on the page. This means that those book readers have to instead spend more money on audio books, as they are not (yet) declared legally blind.
In the film industry, anyone (despite their disabilities) can either watch or listen to a DVD without any cost difference. This means that they cater to disabilities at all levels, unlike the book industry. Additionally, if we wanted the book in Spanish too, we'd have to buy ANOTHER edition and this is not so with films. What makes the Author's Guild so high and mighty? What makes them any more important than a film industry?!
Nope. This is just plain wrong! As I said, let the piracy begin. The Authors Guild is going to lose this one and lose big. I foresee a lawsuit which will lead to a requirement in packaging both written (in several languages) and audio books (in several languages) in one very reasonably priced package. They shall reap, what they sow. They had better be careful with their demands. They're about to become fewer if consumers get a hold of them.