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."

25 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Hackable by Walzmyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    considering that this thing is running linux, I'm going to just set my timer and see how long it is before /. is posting a story that the TTS feature has been opened up to any book.

  2. So Amazon wins anyway by sheehaje · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which title would you buy, one that has the text 2 speech or one that doesn't? Seems like this is a value add, and any publisher would be loosing out by asking Amazon to withhold kindle.

    So, Amazon in a sense wins, because I'm willing to bet most titles will end up with text 2 speech anyways.

    Then again, some people buy operating systems when there are perfectly good operating systems available for free. So what do I know?

    1. Re:So Amazon wins anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      So what do I know?

      Not enough to spell "losing" correctly, apparently.

  3. DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by Mathinker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even if the encryption algorithm and hardware were "unhackable", how hard could it be to set up a robot finger to press "Next Page" + a digital camera to photograph each page + OCR if desired????

    Have a Kindle title which you want TTS (and it was forbidden)? Just convert it to regular text, as above, and poof, TTS.

    Unless Amazon is going to start checking the files you TTS/read on your Kindle for copyright violations, I suppose.

    1. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That is the dumbest fucking thing I have read all week.

    2. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "how hard could it be to set up a robot finger to press "Next Page" + a digital camera to photograph each page + OCR if desired????"

      Most people cannot set that up. The point of DRM is not to be un-hackable, it is to be un-hackable by most people, and a system that requires the assembly of a robot is beyond what most Kindle users can set up. In fact, Kindle would be the most successful DRM system ever if it required a robotic finger to defeat, because that is a circumvention measure that cannot be distributed as a file over the Internet, the way systems like deCSS can be.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sounds like a lot of work. I'd rather just buy the amazon.com book, and then download the pure text file off bittorent as a "backup" that I can conveniently play in my laptop or Iphone or Kindle. Ya know, there are several organizations that read books to the blind, and release them as audio. Like this one: http://www.readingsfortheblind.org/ - I wonder why the Authors' Guild doesn't complain about them?

      Perhaps amazon ought to re-package their marketing. Instead of calling it "text to speech", call the Kindle "handicap accessible" and "reads aloud to our blind patrons". Then it would make the Authors' Guild President look like a dick. "He wants to stop blind people from enjoying books? What an ___."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if the encryption algorithm and hardware were "unhackable", how hard could it be to set up a robot finger to press "Next Page" + a digital camera to photograph each page + OCR if desired????
      Sounds like a lot more work than just buying a paper copy, gillotineing the spine off and shoving it in a sheet fed scanner.

      Being moderately effective against the casual copiers is about the best a DRM scheme can home for. The geeks and the serious pirates will always find a way to get an unprotected copy.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I realize you're just giving this as an example, but the better thing to do here is "Stop giving these companies your money!" if you truly believe DRM should be stopped. Where possible, buy from paces that do not support it.

    6. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by sqlrob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      irrelevant. It takes *ONE* person to do it and distribute the file. You missed the "and OCR it".

    7. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by Raenex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not seeing any difference between "digital rights management" and the MicroProse C=64 disks I used to buy which used digital errors to block copying.

      "Digital rights management" goes beyond just copying, though that is the primary driver. It includes not being able to use "region encoded" DVDs that you bought elsewhere. It means they don't want to let you skip over the copyright warning when you play your movie. It means they don't want to let you have a computer read a book that you just paid for. What does any of that have to do with "copy protection"?

    8. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by jkgamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>> I'm not seeing any difference between "digital rights management" and the MicroProse C=64 disks I used to buy which used digital errors to block copying. It seems they both achieve the same goal: Stop copying and also block the user from uploading the Microprose game to a friend.

      Well I am sorry, but I clearly see a difference.

      "Copy Protection" did not prevent you from performing any of the following actions...

      1. It did not prevent you from using your software on a portable unit. (SX-64)

      2. It did not prevent you from using your software on a newer, upgraded model. (C=128) (Although this could be debated if the protection scheme turned out to be incompatible with the newer hardware. In those cases, the publisher, inevitably released patches or new versions that were compatible if the market conditions were acceptable.)

      3. It did not prevent you from using your software on a replacement unit. (New C=64 machine purchased to replace broken C=64 machine)

      4. It did not prevent you from taking your software over to a friends house and playing it with your friend. (If it was multi-player. At least you didn't have to cart your C=64 around with you to show off your new purchase.)

      5. It did not prevent your from donating or re-selling that software to someone else after you no longer had a use for it. (Right of First Sale.)

      6. It did not prevent you from using the software if you just happened to forget the password, forget the login account, or otherwise fail to validate the myriad other ways that are now used to ensure that the person attempting to use the software in indeed the original purchaser.

      All of these issues are and have been generally applied to consumer purchases in the past. No one places DRM type restrictions on my purchase of an automobile, house, or TV set. Yet "Digital Rights Management" seeks to prevent the consumer from doing any one of the above.

      In summary, "Copy Protection" prevented you from making unauthorized "copies" of the software. "DRM" is designed to prevent you from making unauthorized "uses" of that same software. However, letting a corporation who's ultimate motive is monetary profit (Nothing wrong with that) decide what is a legal and authorized "use" (Everything wrong with that) goes against the entire grain and intent of Copyright laws. Copyright laws were enacted to create a fair and balanced benefit between the author AND the public welfare! If we allow corporations to restrict how knowledge can be used (and that IS what intellectual property is, knowledge.) then we restrict everyone's, including our own, future development and welfare.

    9. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by gilroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In summary, "Copy Protection" prevented you from making unauthorized "copies" of the software. "DRM" is designed to prevent you from making unauthorized "uses" of that same software.

      Excellent summary. People try hard to obfuscate the difference.

    10. Re:DRM for text is a really ridiculous idea by orasio · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

      Â 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.

  4. Yay! by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why am I cheering about what seems to be a complete breakdown of what geeks want?

    Simple - for most books, the "rightsholder" is the AUTHOR, not the publisher. (This is the opposite situation from the music industry.)

    So authors will need to contact Amazon to disable this, and I'm betting that generally they won't bother. If the book publishers tell Amazon to do it, Amazon can just point out that the copyright is not in their control.

    --
    Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
  5. Serious impacts... by Manip · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although seriously questionable legally, if the authors guild was able to prove that Text-To-Speech of copyright books was copyright infringement then that would be absolutely huge.

    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.

    Plus, where does the copyright end? If someone makes a book reference in public will they get their butt sued? Or will we have to get a public display licence to have a conversation now?

    Ultimately Amazon shouldn't concede on this. In fact I want this to be legally tested and put to rest asap.

  6. Re:Time will tell by peculium.infirmus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of them, now that they know they can charge extra for it. But honestly, how many people want Stephen King to sound like Steven Hawking ?

  7. Re:Seriously... by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This would be that sort of thing without any special version thereof.

    The big deal here was that it was cutting out another revenue stream (which was more per unit than the books were...) and cutting out the pay to the person doing the book reading. Unfortunately, not all books are converted to audio. Most are not, actually.

    Now, if Kindle can do audio books, it's sort of fine- but it's going to be an overpriced media player that one could accomplish this limited result with a smaller, cheaper device. The thing that made the Kindle even more special is that you didn't NEED someone to read out a book into audio format, it was going to open up a larger space up for the blind. That is now up in the air that there will be any such thing.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  8. Did I miss the memo? DRM is OK now? by nloop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This may be flame bait, but does anyone else really not care about this DRM laden device? I feel like people here generally agree that the DMCA, DRM, RIAA, and a lot of other acronyms are bad, however, the Kindle seems to break the rules and suddenly be cool? When someone jailbreaks it and allows the use of admittedly nice looking display without being tied to Amazon's DRM I will be interested. Until then, stop, please.

  9. 17 USC 121 by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:Time will tell by peculium.infirmus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I need more coffee, I spelled Stephen Hawking wrong..... Dont worry, I have already taken the appropriate amount of points off my geek card.

  11. Asked and answered. by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    And will there be an override for people with disabilities?

    No, because they use something other than Kindle.

  12. Clever play by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although I find it abhorrent from a copyright law perspective, this might have been a very clever move by Amazon. These rights holders who can't make money legitimately have been going around trying to make money by making extortionate threats. Amazon just removed that card from the Authors Guild's hand. I wonder how the authors -- who are supposed to be served by the Authors Guild -- feel about it. Kindle and Kindle 2 were 2 of the best things that have happened to authors; nice to alienate Amazon.

    I wonder how many of the authors will now 'opt out' of the text-to-speech feature. I'm guessing: none.

    Amazon showed this threat for what it was: extortion.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  13. Re:DRM wins again! by damaki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, people are so intelligent that they have been buying DRMed files for years on iTunes while CDs exist for a similar price.
    And Then they are again so intelligent that some pay premium to strip the DRM from their old iTunes tracks instead of downloading these from another source.

    Yeah, people are not completely stupid...

    --
    Stupidity is the root of all evil.
  14. Re:NOT author & publisher's choice by phillymjs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amazon should not have caved to this ridiculous request. The final choice is with consumers, who should refuse to buy any book that they can't run through text-to-speech or any other device that enables them to use their purchase.

    While I agree that Amazon should have told these guys to go fuck themselves, what they have actually done is a brilliant "carrot and stick" maneuver that will ultimately get them what they want:

    1. Amazon gives in to the Guild's demand (the carrot), and will conveniently label those books on their site which prohibit TTS.
    2. People who think the Authors Guild is a bunch of dicks can boycott the clearly-marked titles and purchase others.
    3. Sales of TTS-prohibited books plummet (the stick).
    4. Authors Guild realizes that their greed has actually cost them money, and reverses their decision.

    ~Philly