Kindle's read aloud feature under fire

Is it legal for Amazon to put your ebook into it's kindle's read out loud feature? Some say yes and some say no. Author's Guild is urging authors to negotiate those rights.

Publishers Weekly and Author's Guild both have articles on the subject. Interesting reading.

Read what PW has to say here:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6637184.html?nid=2286&source=title&rid=1609285953


The Author's Guild article appears on it's website:
http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/e-book-rights-alert-amazons-kindle-2.html

I for one am thinking that unless you have negotiated this in your contract to retain the rights to audio recording, you may be out in the cold.

If this is allowed to continue without paying the author for their audio rights, authors may be out quite a bit of revenue.

This was discussed in the Chatter forum, fyi.

cturkel wrote:

This was discussed in the Chatter forum, fyi.

With links to the articles? (that's why I posted them here)

Hmm, perhaps this thread should merged with the other one, so everything is in one place.

I don't think anybody is out any revenue for this, Zada.

What money would be missing? People who buy it only for the sound?
If the feature sells more books (which I doubt) it would be more royalties for the author.

lin wrote:

I don't think anybody is out any revenue for this, Zada.

What money would be missing? People who buy it only for the sound?
If the feature sells more books (which I doubt) it would be more royalties for the author.

I am thinking of those authors who have done audio CDs of their books, lin. Doesn't that come into the mix? I haven't done it, but I know of some who have. I think they had to get those rights from their publishers if I remember the discussions correctly.

This is a tough subject. I doubt if there are any quick and easy answers.

I am grateful for perfect sight. I don't need glasses for any purpose and can read anything, anywhere. I am grateful for perfect hearing. In fact, my hearing is quite good and was an early warning system when sailing (a mother's ear ). I am grateful for my general good health;though I have a little asthma and when it's really bad, I do look with longing at those handicapped signs for parking.

Am I in the wrong thread? No, I am in this thread to say that if a digitized voice gives a person with less sight and tired eyes the enjoyment of my Kindle book, I am thrilled. On the otherhand, my audio book with the music and the actors with wonderful diction who give life to the characters and resonate with charm, I want people to buy that audio book to pay for the work that went in to it. Those people may be driving or sitting back and relaxing in the evening and just enjoying listening instead of straining their eyes one more hour.

Computer programs already translate voice to type, but it has its glitches. Commerce just has difficulty wrapping its arms around rapidly changing technology - just as the music industry fought Napster and actors are concerned about DVD piracy - but generally something is worked out eventually.

In the meantime, I'll just muddle along, making the best of the changes as they come, a small voice in a sea of change.

Bless you, DK. I understand disabilities and sympathize with those who need the audio versions. But they have to pay for the privelege of audio just like those who buy books. It just stands to reason that Amazon should not be the one to profit solely for the sale of audio. At least, that is how I see it.

I have no real vested interest in it, but I am curious to see how it tuns out. Like you said, you should be compensated for the time and money you have invested in your audio version. I am sure it is wonderful and you deserve anything you get for it. Hopefully you will get enough to pay for the project.

I guess my thought is that by purchasing the Kindle, they have purchased something that they might not be able to read but to which they can listen (thus, the author has a sale instead of no sale). I would find it quite distracting to listen to a digitized voice while reading on a Kindle; and I would find a digitized voice distracting in general from my own imagination giving life to the novel. Therefore, I tend to think that those who use the digitized function would not be a threat to professional audio books. I may be way wrong as I have no annecdotal evidence, just my own thoughts on the matter.

Well, let's examine this. Somebody wants a book they can listen to. Would they buy the Kindle book with robo-voice, or an audio book read in a pleasant voice, perhaps even by a professional actor? For about the same amount of money, right?

Of course, you could envision a family with one blind member who would otherwise buy two versions.....

My feeling is nobody really knows the financial impact, but are batling over abstract points. Seldom a good idea, in my book.

You are probably quite right, lin.

Beats me. I have no idea who would sit through hearing a novel read by a machine.

I remember MacDonald's trying to restrain the Candadian makers of Donald's iced tea mix (probably the only powdered iced tea mix worth mixing) because it interfered with their "Ronald McDonald".

Trying to make it law that a guy can't use his OWN NAME on a product if it conflicts with the name of a cartoon mannequin.

Lawyers almost never tell anybody it's not a good idea to sue.

I've noticed that.

As charming as the notion that the main beneficiaries of Amazon's munificence will be the sight-challenged, I see the this feature's target market being people who buy audio books for car trips or for listening to at work.

The voice won't be robotic for long. Watch, just watch, Amazon will hire actors for it eventually. And Amazon alone will reap the profits.

Nobody here (or in there right mind) would postulate amazon's "munificence". That's your own invention.

So. The writer scores if they buy the audio book, or if they buy the eBook. So you're saying that here are lots of people out there who would buy BOTH, but don't have to because of this feature?

Anybody think that's a significant number? As opposed to those who have a Kindle and might therefore buy an eBook for their trips to Grandma's house?

By the way... the idea of "hiring actors" is way far removed from the type of text to sound technology here.

<< Nobody here (or in there right mind) would postulate amazon's "munificence". That's your own invention. >>

I was being sarcastic.

As for what can be done with sound technology, who knows? Many of today's computer/internet capabilities still seem magic to me. But maybe I'm just easily impressed.

There's some interesting stuff going on with that. I've looked into some of the low end programs, but anything that sounds even halfway decent is really expensive and would require not only installation on the Kindle, but licensing.

Basically, I think it's just a matter of how many sales would this cost a writer... and might it not just as easily stimulate sales. No way to tell on that.

Sorry to be stuffy with you, LC. New anonymous posters have been a nuisance here lately and I might have over-reacted to your sarcasm. Which is hardly fair since I'm so often sarky myself.

dkchristi wrote:

I guess my thought is that by purchasing the Kindle, they have purchased something that they might not be able to read but to which they can listen (thus, the author has a sale instead of no sale). I would find it quite distracting to listen to a digitized voice while reading on a Kindle; and I would find a digitized voice distracting in general from my own imagination giving life to the novel. Therefore, I tend to think that those who use the digitized function would not be a threat to professional audio books. I may be way wrong as I have no annecdotal evidence, just my own thoughts on the matter.

I came to this thread by way of a google search on how to get my kindle to read aloud.

I think its a fair question and effort to explore the implications. In all fairness it hardly seems right that Amazon or other retail outfits make more dime on the authors work. If read aloud functionality advantages the retailer with no benefit to the author I see that as unfair and even an exploit.

On the other hand he may simply promote the sale of the book and text to speech could not be call the same as an audio CD. An electronic voice, though sufficient for listening lacks the essence of the human voice.

I have a reading impairment and use both text to speech and speech to text technology to keep up with my studies and leisure reading. Without it I am dead in the water. I need the text to speech with the written page so that I can hear the text and see the illustration. Audio books don't provide that. The human voice dramatizes the story and if thats what I am after fine. However, as authors I would hope there could be a win win so that readers of your works can enjoy them in a formate that meets their reading/listening preference or requirements.

Good luck to all you authors. I certainly support and equitable solution.

I have no problem with a read-aloud feature that can help individuals with limited sight enjoy eBooks and agree with D.K. on this completely. Nor do I think the inclusion of a read-aloud option is an infringing use as long as an audio version is not sold separately without the authors' consent. Under the current technology, no one would equate a read-aloud version of a book with a professional audiobook, so I don't think that sales of the latter would be significantly affected by a read-aloud version of the former. Of course that may change and the issue may be less clearly covered by fair use if/when it does, in my view at least.