Slashdot Log In
Author's Guild Says Kindle's Text-To-Speech Software Illegal
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:15 AM
from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.
from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.
Mike writes "The Author's Guild claims that the new Kindle's text-to-speech software is illegal, stating that 'They don't have the right to read a book out loud,' said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. 'That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.' Forget for a moment that text-to-speech doesn't copy an existing work. And forget the odd notion that the artificial enunciation of plain text is equivalent to a person's nuanced and emotive reading. The Guild's claim is that even to read out loud is a production akin to an illegal copy, or a public performance."
Related Stories
Submission: Kindle's Text-To-Speech Software Illegal? by Anonymous Coward
[+]
News: Authors Guild President Wants To End Royalty-Free TTS On Kindle 539 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The president of the Authors Guild has launched a rant in the NY Times about how the Kindle 2 provides Text-to-Speech capabilities that, oh the horror, allow the user to have any text on the Kindle read to her. Roy Blunt, Jr. moans that this is copyright infringement of audio books, and that Kindle users should be forced to pay royalties on audio even though they've already paid for the text version of a book! Amazingly he harps on about how TTS technology has become so good that it may replace humans — and then uses this to argue that it's unfair for Kindle to provide TTS! I think the Authors Guild need a new president — someone less of a Luddite, and more familiar with copyright law." (See also the Guild's executive director's similar claims that reading aloud, royalty-free, is an illegal function of software.)
[+]
News: Remote Kill Flags Surface In Kindle 630 comments
PL/SQL Guy writes "The Kindle has a number of 'remote kill' flags built in to the hardware that, among other things, allow the text-to-speech function to be disabled at any time on a book-by-book basis. 'Beginning yesterday, Random House Publishers began to disable text-to-speech remotely. The TTS function has apparently been remotely disabled in over 40 works so far.' But what no one at Amazon will discuss is what other flags are lurking in the Kindle format: is there a 'read only once' flag? A 'no turning the pages backwards' flag?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
To hell with them! (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously though, despite this being a rediculous idea, what is the Authors' Guild actually trying to do here?
I mean, if anybody is really pushing to create more copyright holder rights, it's Amazon and the Kindle. Let's review...
-The right to not let my friends borrow my book when I'm finished reading it? Check.
-The right to not resell my book on the used books market when I'm done? Check.
-The right to having access to my books revoked on a whim if my provider goes out of business, or *gasp* decides it's not a profitable market (MSN Music, I'm looking at you)? Check.
With all these rights landgrabs that Amazon is making with their digital books on Amazon (and heck, digital media in general), I'd assumed they were colluding with the Author's Guild. I mean, if nobody can share your books, and nobody can help spread the buzz surrounding your great ideas or fiction... that means you'll make more sales... right?
To hell with all of them. I'll read quietly, or out loud when ever I please. And just for being assholes, I'm going to pirate the next book published by a guild author. And I'm going to listen to Microsoft Sam read it to me. And I'm going to pretend to like it.
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the purpose of the "read out loud" right? Because reading out loud would be an interpretation and infringe on the art? What about a monotone voice, like text to speech?
What happens, however when the tech gets so good that it can read with emotion.. better yet, mimick the voice of any person we choose? Do the rules then change?
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
The closest example I can think of is buying a Harry Potter book and reading it to your kids.
As one of my old bosses used to say so frequently, "Fuck you, sue me."
Parent
Re:Not actually the closest example. (Score:5, Insightful)
That makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the matter at hand. This has nothing to do with "public performances," and is actually about "derivative works." Two TOTALLY different things. Did you even read the article? Because it's quite clear that the argument is about audio derivatives, not public performances, and your claim doesn't even really make much sense if you consider the legal definition of "public performance."
To clarify and educate; the Author's Guild is claiming that the Kindle's text-to-speech feature effectively is creating audio "derivative works," whenever it's employed, and copyright law reserves the right to audio derivatives for the author. This has nothing to do with public performances, and I don't know where you got that idea.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Obviously it does! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Shhhhh: nobody tell them about text-to-braille [google.ca].
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no issue. If I have a contract which allows me to sell frozen burritos, but not ready-to-eat burritos, selling frozen burritos along with a microwave (which turns them into ready-to-eat burritos) doesn't violate the contract.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Funny)
That is the best analogy using kitchen appliances and Mexican frozen food that I've heard so far this week.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure anyone would want exclusive rights to the derivative work I make based on a burrito.
Parent
Why the Guild's Position is in Our Best Interests (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently, a mid-level author has several payment streams potentially -- one from the books themselves and one from audio recordings. The Kindle threatens to eliminate one of those payment streams. Will the world really be better off if writers get paid less than they already are?
I think the Guild is doing exactly what any membership organization should do -- advocate for its members.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but I'd imagine the purpose of the read out loud right is to protect playwrights from having people perform their plays without permission or compensation. In that context, it makes sense. In the context of a text to speech computer intended for personal use, it makes no sense.
Sure, if someone starts hooking their Kindle up to a PA system and staging public performances of an electronic reading of someone's book, I could see an issue. However, the device itself having the ability to read text back is not in itself any kind of violation. Computers have had text to speech in some form for decades, and I'm sure they've been used to "speak" copyrighted works plenty of times in the past.
The Author's Guild is cutting off its nose to spite its face here.
Parent
I have a suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Basic suggestion: get 50 people. Go to the "Author's Guild" offices, stage a sit-in, and everyone start reading some book aloud.
To make it REALLY funny, make it a freely-available Creative Commons book. Maybe Free Culture [free-culture.org] by Lessig.
Parent
Re:I have a suggestion (Score:5, Interesting)
Or more appropriately, Dracula. Out of copyright and freely available as an e-book.
Just play the Free audio book [librivox.org].
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Realistically, I think they are worried about audio book sales. I know lots of commuters that churn through a lot of audio books. The read-aloud feature of the Kindle might make a dent in those sales.
I don't think they are on very good legal ground - we shall see.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Interesting)
So should someone sue the guild, for not being accessible for the blind? Most blind books are not released for ages after the original. The read out loud feature could be seen as an accessibility tool, like the screen reader in XP.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, I couldn't see that they should change at all.
Millions of kids read their kids bed time stories, many elderly people like to have stories read to them, why should a machine doing it suddenly require a whole new licensing regime? Or if this is already illegal then there's already something severely messed up with the laws surrounding written works.
They should be happy, it means blind people can also now buy books and get some use out of them.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not even distributing it as text. They are distributing it as a modulated electronic signal which the kindle stores, interprets and displays as text.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Three reasons spring to mind:
* Discrimination against blind users
* Disregard for fair use in copyright law
* Dinosaur-like worldviews
* Dinosaur-like brains
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Funny)
By that logic, all performances by Keanu Reeves are not derivitive works.
Woah.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Interesting)
Make more money for the Authors' Guild. This has absolutely nothing to do with authors, writers, publishers, editors, or anyone who reads books. This is solely the money-grabbing greed of Paul Aiken and his cronies. If I were an employee of the guild I would be so ashamed of Aiken's comments I'd resign. This man, despite his apparent position representing authors, is actually against people enjoying books.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA wants you to enjoy their music by yourself, but not let others share the enjoyment.
The MPAA wants you to watch their movies, but pay per viewing and only where it lets you.
The Authors Guild wants you to read their books, but only to yourself, and if you enjoy them, tell your friends to buy them, but don't tell them why.
The Lord of War wants you to shoot bullets at people for as long as you can buy them. You don't even have to hit anything. Just keep buying.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Funny)
The Author's Guild has me over a barrel. 2-4 books a day (2 at nap time if I'm home and another couple before bed). Man, I never realized that reading Dr Seuss to my 3-year-old would be such a nightmare in terms of derivative rights and royalties.
Even though I've been doing this daily for years, does it help me at all that he's yet to give me any kind of financial compensation for it?
Parent
Not what it looks like (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sitting here thinking that no lawyer could possibly be dumb enough to advise their client with this legal theory. Even if we accept this concept at face value (which it does have some value related to public performances and derivitive works), fair use throws a huge monkey wrench into any potential lawsuits. Courts have repeatedly held up that once you are sold a copy of a product, you are entititled to privately do whatever you want with it. That includes space and time shifting. Text to speech is just another type of space shifting. i.e. Moving from one medium to another.
Then I realized that there's no way Mr. Aiken is serious about these threats. He's posturing in an attempt to force Amazon to rethink the text-to-speech in light of their audio book business. This becomes especially clear based on the response from an Amazon spokesperson:
So never fear! The world isn't quite upside down yet. This is just business as usual. Someone's trying to play a weak hand and hopes the other side folds. (Good luck with that.)
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Informative)
If I am not mistaken copyright law in most countries holds exceptions for disabled people, they can use "translated" versions without paying extra.
Translated versions would for example be text to speech, but also the still ubiquitos braille.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Interesting)
You have no idea.
When looking for schoolbooks for the severely dyslexic little brother of a friend we tried looking for audio books. Turned out there was an organisation which used to deal with that here. Notice "was".
For schoolbooks which had no audio book available from the publisher they'd got teachers who volunteered to record audio books for blind students.
Guess what the publishers thought of that.
Now they aren't allowed hand out recordings to blind students and the publishers aren't interested in making or distributing any since the market is so small.
As far as rights holders are concerned the disabled can go fuck themselves.
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:4, Insightful)
"To hell with all of them. I'll read quietly, or out loud when ever I please. And just for being assholes, I'm going to pirate the next book published by a guild author. And I'm going to listen to Microsoft Sam read it to me. And I'm going to pretend to like it."
It might hit them harder if you gave your attention instead to people who respected you more.
drew
--
http://zotz.kompoz.com/ [kompoz.com]
Parent
Write to them and tell them to stop being stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:To hell with them! (Score:5, Funny)
So no more bed time stories?
Just apply for a bed time story license from the authors guild. Make sure that you educate your children about copyright law though -- the license is only valid for you and if they repeat the story to their friends at school we'll have to haul them into court.
Parent
Re:Slashdot Bedtime Stories, Volume 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all wrong. In Soviet Russia, a big bowl of hot grits had Natalie Portman.
Parent
No more bed time stories for my daughter? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No more bed time stories for my daughter? (Score:5, Funny)
"Come inside," said the bird to mouse. "I'll show you what's inside Paul Aiken's house."
A Rolex, a Ferrari, a Ming dynasty spittoon. A lawyer, not an author, but a certified Loon.
Parent
Hogwash (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes I read a portion of a book out loud - to myself - in order to slow down my thought processes. It is akin, I think, to taking notes when being lectured. The act of reading out loud alters both the rate and the quality of my understanding of the text.
Which, according to Paul Aiken, means I'm a criminal.
Speaking as the owner of one of the oldest SF-specialized literary agencies in the country, and as someone who is quite interested in protecting author's rights for all the obvious reasons, I think Aiken has fallen off the cognitive cliff, and that he does no one - not authors, not consumers, not publishers - any favors by pushing this over-the-top interpretation of what an "audio performance" is.
Wow, kicking blind people. A new low (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, kicking blind people. A new low (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was in high school, the director of our AV department waged a protracted battle with me over my making enlarged copies of sheet music in the orchestra. Never mind that this was a matter of vision accessability. Never mind that the school had allocated me a legitimately-purchased original, just as they did for each other student. Never mind that academic fair use would have been squarely in play even if the above hadn't been true, and certainly never mind that the law specifically forbade the reasoning behind his theory as to why fair use shouldn't apply.
I probably should've sued the district, but that's not how I roll.
My point, though, is this: There are indeed a subset of the population that believe content authors should have the right to profit from the fact that some customers have differing needs in how they can view said content. "You can't buy the regular edition and adapt it to your needs; you have to buy the special high-priced usable-by-you edition (if we bother to make one)".
Parent
Absolutely Ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
All this revolves around are audio books sales. Forget the fact that right now synthesized text to speech is painful to listen vs a human voice, this is just another case of technology slowly making one industry obsolete.
They might as well sue teachers or those libraries that offer children's programs by reading a book out loud.
They say nothing makes more problems than solutions, and I feel the concept of intellectual property taking this to extreme.
Voice Web Browsers (Score:5, Insightful)
Accessibility, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other derivative works. (Score:5, Funny)
Also, there will be a small royalty charge for moving your lips as you read. This has two benefits. There will be fewer people moving their lips as they read. And there will be fewer people reading.
-Loyal
It may once have been but is not now (Score:4, Insightful)
Before the days of IT technology producing sound from text required a performance.
Now sound from text is a programmed translation. No more different or complex than the rendering of the book PDF information on the screen.
Welcome to the information age. Data is data and rendering translations are done all over the place, ascii to display bits. HTML to display. GIF, JPEG to images, MPEG to sound, MPEG to video. ascii, pdf or html to sound is no more difficult or complex. Just a little newer.
News just in... (Score:5, Funny)
Rumor has it that if they are successful, the Authors Guild will next file suit against God for providing a source of light outside in daytime.
Ah yes, the authors guild (Score:5, Funny)
Same authors guild who want a royalty on all used book sales?
Guys, do the world a favor, go play in traffic.
Epic battle incoming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ladies and gentlemen! A full-contact legal battle for the ages!
In this corner, we have the Author's Guild, with the full weight of American copyright law behind them.
And in this corner, we've got the National Federation for the Blind, swinging a big stick: the Americans with Disabilities Act!
Gentlemen ... FIGHT!
How do they respond to the ADA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right to read? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Why teachers are not criminals in the USA (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot comments are not legal advice. Run them past your attorney if you have questions.
By their reasoning, all of my elementary school teachers are criminals.
Not exactly. The performance of a work as part of face-to-face teaching takes advantage of several limitations of copyright's scope, both implicit in fair use (17 USC 107 [bitlaw.com]) and explicit (17 USC 110(1) [bitlaw.com]). Besides, 17 USC 110(4) would appear to make this whole article not apply.
Parent