Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Caves On Kindle 2 Text-To-Speech
On Wednesday we discussed news that the Authors Guild had objected to the text-to-speech function on Amazon's Kindle 2, claiming that it infringed on audio book copyright. Today, Amazon said that while the feature is legally sound, they would be willing to disable text-to-speech on a title-by-title basis at the rightsholder's request. "We have already begun to work on the technical changes required to give authors and publishers that choice. With this new level of control, publishers and authors will be able to decide for themselves whether it is in their commercial interests to leave text-to-speech enabled. We believe many will decide that it is."
Tons of disabled people already depend on text-to-speech and with an ever older populace this is only going to become even more important to everyone.
People with disabilities can use specialized devices, which are made available only by prescription to people with a qualifying disability, that play copies of works produced under an exception to the U.S. copyright statute (17 USC 121). Kindle 2, being available to all, does not meet this requirement.
And will there be an override for people with disabilities?
No, because they use something other than Kindle.
"I wonder why the Authors' Guild doesn't complain about them?"
Because by law, the blind must have access to TTS, and therefore the authors' guild cannot make money on it. In this case, they see a money making opportunity, and want to capitalize on it at the expense of consumers.
Palm trees and 8
Not pointing it out and letting them go through life with the misguided impression that nobody cares that they sound like a fucking idiot is even worse. It's the same level of social apathy as letting someone walk around with a kick me sign taped to their back.
Only douchebags think that's acceptable.
DRM (we called it "copy-protection" when I was a lad)
No, you didn't. You called *COPY PROTECTION* "copy-protection". You didn't call DRM anything because DRM didn't exist.
I think authors should have a right to protect their labor from theft.
And this is why you fail - DRM is not about "theft", it's about control.
As in "I made something, so I get to control what you do with it after I sell it to you, even if the law *EXPLICTLY* grants you the right to do something, I want to stop you from doing that."
Take your straw man somewhere else.
The issue i much bigger than just the blind. Both the MacOS and many versions of Linux have screen readers for the blind as part of the OS and there are similar products for sale or download for Windows.
These screen readers can be activated and used by anyone, not just the blind. So is this technology illegal? Should the users of such be required to prove they are disabled before it can be activated on their computers?
While the voices on the Kindle 2 were not that great there are very high quality voices which are more useable the MacOS Alex voice for one. To see where this all might go you can visit an experimental talking book library in Western Australia www.cucat.org/library/ which permits the public to download DAISY digital talking books (www.daisy.org) recorded in higher quality voices.
Try fair use. Quite legal. Quite contrary to DRM.
Infuriate left and right
I am not aware of any law that allows copying a game. Not even for backups. Please provide a citation.
Copyright law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. â" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
The Authors Guild did not actually sue anyone, they just raised a media stink.
I'm not exactly a raving fan of the Authors Guild for this, but I'm happy they didn't sue any grandmas who don't even own the device in question in order to make their point.