Know Your Rights: Does the Kindle 2's text-to-speech infringe authors' copyrights?

Know Your Rights is Engadget's technology law series, written by our own totally punk ex-copyright attorney Nilay Patel. In it we'll try to answer some fundamental tech-law questions to help you stay out of trouble in this brave new world. Disclaimer: this isn't legal advice, but it is best read aloud by a text to speech app.

Hey, so does the Kindle 2's Read to Me text-to-speech feature really infringe on authors' copyrights?

It's nice to be back! It's been a while.

Yeah yeah. Get to it.

Okay, so the issue is that the Kindle 2's Read to Me feature obviously threatens the audiobook market, and while at first blush it seems like the Authors Guild has a pretty weak case when executive director Paul Aiken says things like "They don't have the right to read a book out loud," it's not necessarily as ridiculous as it seems.

Yeah, that's totally ridiculous! Wait, what?

Well, think about it this way -- once you get it on the Kindle 2, an ebook can serve as both a regular book (that you read) and a recording (that you listen to). What the Authors Guild seems to be saying -- in a totally backwards and potentially inaccurate way -- is that while Amazon has the rights to sell you the book, it doesn't have the rights to sell you the recording.

Are you seriously saying that I don't have the right to read a book out loud? Girl, you crazy.

No, you absolutely have the right to read a book out loud -- but you're not allowed to make recordings of yourself and sell them. That's something only authors are allowed to do, and it's hard to have a problem with that. You'd be pretty miffed if someone started selling recorded versions of your blog without compensating you, wouldn't you?

But the Kindle isn't playing back recordings -- it's synthesizing sounds based on the words in the book! Isn't that just a private reading?

Sure, and a MIDI piano isn't playing back song recordings, it's just playing notes from a file that sound exactly like the sound recording, right?

This is actually pretty tough stuff -- as far as edge cases go, this one pushes right up against the boundaries of the current law. On one hand, you definitely have the right to read books that you own out loud using whatever tools you want, and on the other, authors definitely have the right to prevent others from selling audio versions of their works. The Kindle's text-to-speech feature blurs the lines between books and recordings, and that means those two rights are in conflict with each other.

Come on, text-to-speech has been around forever! What's next, suing Apple for MacInTalk?

It's always gotta be Apple, doesn't it?

Answer the question, smartass.

Well, sure, you can buy ebooks and play them back using OS X's text-to-speech voices. But here's the thing -- no one really does that, so no one cares. The Kindle is the first major text-to-speech device that could impact audiobook sales, so it's not surprising it's the first to garner this kind of scrutiny. Remember: just because someone can file a lawsuit doesn't mean they have to.

Okay, but who's honestly going to choose the Kindle's computer voice over a real person reading an audiobook?

You're right, nothing's ever going to compare to a real live person reading to you, but it's not like technology ever stops progressing -- while the Kindle 2's voice isn't the best, we'd bet almost anything that the Kindle 5 or the Kindle 10 will be more than adequate for a lot of people. Remember, people happily listen to 128kbps MP3s through crappy iPod headphones all day long -- eventually the quality tipping point will come, and the Authors Guild is just trying to protect its own before they get totally bowled over.

So basically Amazon just has to pay up?

Well, maybe -- it's not exactly terrific public policy to say that text should be considered a recording as well, especially given the prevalence and intrinsic value of computerized text-to-speech. We'd say that means Amazon should fight this one out, honestly, but that doesn't mean Jeff Bezos won't just cut a check and make this all go away for now. You can do that when you're Amazon.

Look, just make this easy for me: who should I flame in comments? That's all I really need to know.

Doesn't matter -- we read everything back in the OS X "Princess" voice anyway, tough guy.

Thanks again to Matt Gavronski of Michael Best & Friedrich for his assistance!

[Freitag @ Feb 11th 2009 2:39PM]

Data is data.

Format is irrelevant.

If I have purchased the right to consume a story, it matters not one whit whether I choose to read it or find some way to listen to it.

Heck, I might even roast it and salt it and eat it. I paid for it and it is mine.

It sounds like some cheese head lawyer wants to make all data conform to the 'software as a service' model where you pay every time you use it. The idea is bunk for software and the the idea is bunk for stories.

There is no doubt that the rights holder(s), performer(s), and technician(s) should get paid for the purchase of an audio recording separately from the purchase of a book. In the same way that the rights holder(s) and publisher of a book are paid twice if I buy a book twice. Because in these cases you are talking about TWO separate purchases.

But being charged to have an electronic device read the book to my kid is like charging me money when I read the book to my kid. That is is done by a device instead of me does not matter.

Laws that depend on how technology does things are just plain stupid and short sighted. What is going to happen when someone makes a device that can read a book and dump the contents directly into my brain? It's an appliance. I pay for the book ONCE. I pay for the appliance ONCE.

Imagine if you had to pay Wonder Bread extra just because you put their bread into a machine and turned it into toast.

Just plain stupid.

Henry VI said it best: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'

[BigD145 @ Feb 11th 2009 2:44PM]

Reading to a kid is your clincher. Parents do it daily, I would hope, and libraries also offer such services. Do libraries have to pay some royalty every Saturday afternoon?

[za7ch84 @ Feb 11th 2009 2:54PM]

Good points, Freitag... by the way, nice avatar... may I ask what it is? The University bomber sketch and what else is that?

[Philip @ Feb 11th 2009 2:56PM]

Excellent! I'm gonna start selling pre-toasted bread and sue restaurants for toasting bread for their consumers without paying the right to toast the bread. Brilliant business model!

[Nilay Patel @ Feb 11th 2009 2:58PM]

Don't say we didn't warn you!

http://www.viddler.com/explore/engadget/videos/241/

[Game_playa @ Feb 11th 2009 3:08PM]

Thanks Nilay! You saved me from reading all that. I'm going to do this from now on, if a comment is extra long, I'll just text-to-speech it.

[Major Malfunction @ Feb 19th 2009 1:07PM]

Oh Freitag... I hope you know that the saying is from a Shakespeare play, and that it is really a testament to the role of lawyers in the prevention of abuse. That saying was made because a trio of people are contemplating revolution, they are all thieves and killers, and you give credit to the wrong person. It is Dick the Butcher who makes the claim to kill all of the lawyers so there is no one to prosecute them for high treason.

[pedroren @ Feb 11th 2009 11:40PM]

"Heck, I might even roast it and salt it and eat it. I paid for it and it is mine."
Be carefull, the author hasn't autorized you to eat it!

[Steve @ Feb 11th 2009 3:55PM]

You didn't read the article did you? *sigh*

[Matt @ Feb 11th 2009 4:08PM]

Freitag,

I get why you'd be pissed about this, but most laws have good, common sense reasons behind them, and this one does too. Your Wonder Bread analogy is cute, but it doesn't make sense. Wonder Bread isn't a work of art. A book is.

The point behind the copyright laws is to allow an author to exploit every revenue stream available from making his book. This gives people an incentive to write more books because, like it or not, most people write books for MONEY.

Sure, you might think that once you buy a book, you can do whatever you want with it without paying more money, but think about what that means. Can you take your one copy of the book and release a special edition of it, even if you retyped the whole thing by hand? Can you sell tickets to a play based on the book? Can you make a movie? Shouldn't the author get money for all these things?

The big point here is that an audiobook is just like a movie -- its a performance of a written work. If someone were to make a machine that could automatically turn a book into a movie, most people would probably agree that the author should get some extra cash for that. In that sense, the Kindle is no different.

So before you make some bonehead populist comment about killing the lawyers, think it through first. People like you just lower the level of public discourse.

[El Taco @ Feb 11th 2009 4:19PM]

IMO, this is just like getting another person to read it to you.

[NeoteriX @ Feb 11th 2009 4:27PM]

"Laws that depend on how technology does things are just plain stupid and short sighted."

By all means, if you can predict the future for our lawmakers, please do. It would have saved humanity over all the pants-shitting we went through when the printing press was first invented and no one was ready for the fact that books and text could be made available to the masses. Or when the first records were invented and you didn't need to hire a band when you wanted music. Or when VCRs were introduced and you can make copies of television shows. Or when the internet exploded and people could make bit-for-bit digitally perfect duplications of *anything*.

The case of text-to-speech hasn't previously been an issue because it's always sucked so much, but with GPS devices, the Kindle, and many other growing needs, it *will* get better. And one day, it will be nearly distinguishable from the human voice and we will be confronted with tough copyright policy questions--as we have since the history of information.

The tools and methods we have for creating and copying information will always grow and evolve, and without any way to predict how that will happen, we will have to begrudgingly accept that our laws will always be two steps behind.

[tivolo @ Feb 11th 2009 4:46PM]

@Matt:

Of course you can't re-sell or profit off the works of others (except in some highly limited cases such as parody), but this device is simply providing an alternate means of consuming a book which you already purchased.

The toast example is actually not a bad one. Suppose Wonder Bread sold both bags of bread and bags of toast. The invention of the toaster would threaten their sales of toast so they'd be inclined to claim that you have no right to toast their bread.

If you say that text-to-speech is an infringement, then certainly all forms of OCR are as well since they threaten digital distribution of printed material. Additionally, any device the read screens for the visually impaired or produces braille from printed materials are infringements as well if what's being transformed is copywritten.

Fighting technology is a losing battle. Plus, I have to believe that there's a fundamental quality difference between audio books and the text-to-speech produced by the Kindle.

[BigD145 @ Feb 11th 2009 4:47PM]

@Matt
GM crops aren't a work of art, but they're treated as such.

[ReThink @ Feb 11th 2009 5:05PM]

"I get why you'd be pissed about this, but most laws have good, common sense reasons behind them, and this one does too. Your Wonder Bread analogy is cute, but it doesn't make sense. Wonder Bread isn't a work of art. A book is."

Sorry, but this is where I disagree.

At some point in history the act of taking bread and roasting it would have been a part of the culinary world. One might even say that doing this especially well could have been an art. We now have toasters to do that for us, it is not an art anymore, except by those who do it the old fashioned way.

Text-to-speech is a service like any other, the artistic form of it is in the writing, not simple reading, unless you count the intonation and phrasing that the reader puts into it. In that sense the Kindle 2 is much similar to the toaster, producing something for the average person which would have taken some skill to do otherwise. People can still buy audio books for the sake of having a person with a good voice and phrasing read it to them, but if do not want that they can get the Kindle 2.

Technology will always make certain professions obsolete. The printing press replaced the scribe, the inkjet printer replaced some functions of the painter, and the toaster took cooking bread from chefs. Technology marches on, get used to it.

[egghead @ Feb 11th 2009 5:07PM]

Matt,

Just wait a damned minute. Did you just imply that text-to-speech is the equivalence of a performance? I highly doubt that an sophistication of text-to-speech algorithms will never be able to impart the proper inflection and emotion to the text. In an audiobook, the author generally provides the orator with this knowledge.

If someone decided to take a written work of art and read it aloud into a recording to be played back at a later time, would you consider that to be infringing on the rights of the author? If you do, then you really need a lesson in fair-use. Also, I could take the hardback book and type the whole thing into a text editor to save it for reading at my leisure. I could even make a home movie based on the written work. I have yet to truly infringe on the author's rights.

Would you also consider loaning my book to a friend to be a copyright violation? What if I corrected obvious typos in the book before I loaned it to my friend? What if I then sold the used book to someone else? Still, I do not see how, in any of these cases, the author's rights have been infringed.

[araychau @ Feb 11th 2009 5:32PM]

let me guess your from the south....

[thequinox @ Feb 11th 2009 5:46PM]

@egghead

I completely disagree with you. We are not talking about putting a microphone up to the kindle and gathering the neighbors. This is me in bed or something. Maybe I'm in the bath and I don't want to hold it. Realistically I can't think of why I would want a bad synth voice to read it to me but that is not the question. The issue is should it be able to.

YES. This is just as ridiculous as saying I can't copy music off a CD and listen to it on my DAP. Once I have this text on this page I should be able to read it however I want. Provided I don't try to redistribute it there shouldn't be a problem. I think it is preposterous to put laws on what we can do with technology. I think copyright is important, but I also thing Fair Use is too.

A few years down the line when we finally open our eyes will laugh at concepts like this.

[Goldfinger @ Feb 11th 2009 5:47PM]

@za7ch84

The other picture is from Ghost in the Shell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughing_Man_(Ghost_in_the_Shell)

[thequinox @ Feb 11th 2009 5:51PM]

Sorry egghead, my comment was directed at Matt. Wrong name.

[creagas @ Feb 11th 2009 6:05PM]

Hey Nilay,

actually I think it would be a great idea if you guys would record yourselves reading out loud special articles like this one and made the audio avialable as a part of the post I mean articles that are more like editorial stuff rather than just a news post.

I think it would be much more interesting and enjoyable.

[tim @ Feb 11th 2009 6:49PM]

@Freitag
By your logic, if I had bought an album recorded on a cassette then I've essentially acquired listening rights to that album no matter how the bits are stored. Hence, I should be able to get it as a CD or as MP3 at the cost of the physical media. Also if my physical media gets damaged I should be able to walk up to a store and replace it for the price of the media????

Wait... That *actually* sounds logical! But I guess the RIAA doesn't see it that way.

[Mknapper1 @ Feb 14th 2009 10:52AM]

Authors can't complain about this, I plan on getting a new one as soon as I can, and just like the first one it is going to enable me to read more books, more quickly, resulting in me purchasing more books, and therefore the authors will make more. I can see why they would be upset, but this will only bring on more money over all

[Californian @ Feb 11th 2009 8:23PM]

Freitag,

Here's my two cents. I agree with you, but I think that a simple reflection on the example presented in the original article is sufficient, but I'll add some more to make it clearer.

When you want a copy of, say, Beethoven's Fifth (pretending he is still alive), and you purchase a midi format of the song, is it illegal to have a device that attaches to your piano that records the sound for your personal listening pleasure? Would you have to pay again for the separate audio recording? Nope.

Also, to Matt, not to be rude, but I disagree entirely with your movie example. If there were a machine that could translate books into movies (that was *only* for personal use), the author should get nothing for that; the makers of the "translation" software should. If someone, say, made a tape recorder that you could attach to your TV for personal audio enjoyment of television broadcasts later on, the manufacturer of such a device should not be sued. It is exactly the same thing here.

I suppose it is a deep legal issue, but from what I conclude, it really should not be an issue because it is merely a conversion and for private use. You use your Kindle, and I'll use my G1 while I burn my Kindle on kindling. Wow that was a stupid joke.

[Shawn @ Feb 12th 2009 4:36AM]

Data are data.

Datum is datum.

And tautologies...well, those are another thing all together.

[Mike B @ Feb 12th 2009 10:58AM]

I may be wrong, and I certainly have been before, but I think buying a copy of a book is like buying a copy of software. The book itself is only worth the cost of the ink and the paper, which is a few cents, but the rest of it is purchasing a license to use that book in a home environment. Similar to how if you buy a movie, it is licensed for home viewing, and licensed for 1-10 viewers, making it illegal to show said film with that license on a Daktronics scoreboard. That would require royalties galore. Generally, authors would want, and have good reason to, want money for licensing a reading technology. Keep in mind, while this is still a new technology, it has potential to become much better and could soon replace Audiobooks and other content providers. And as far as MacInTalk goes, it can be sued for that as well. And Apple could put an anti-digital edition reading system similar to how screenshots are blocked during DVD playback. That's just in the mind of Mike, though :)

[grumpyboomer @ Feb 13th 2009 10:18AM]

"All rights reserved"

RIAA says we have no rights to change the format of ANYthing unless we pay for the privilege.

However, text to video isn't a recording -- unless the industry manages to get them defined as such.

[cokebottle tuque @ Feb 25th 2009 4:32PM]

So here are my thoughts on why this is a good thing for us audio book consumers, the kindle offers both e-book text to speech AND audio books by audible... I'm not saying all of audibles books are low quality crap that sound worse than text to speech, but well they now have incentive to put some small amount of effort in to making audio books that I can listen to without cringing at the crappy quality or an uninterested monotone narrator constantly miss pronouncing words, and failing to properly convey the emotions of a scene. Good audio books have multiple VOICE ACTORS, that are trained to sound like the characters they are portraying, to capture the emotion, there is a recording studio involved with some one that knows how to edit the audio to maintain quality, that can say that sounded like crap on my end, do it again.

[ILoveApple @ Feb 11th 2009 2:44PM]

I want to have your babies, Nilay!!!

[lax @ Feb 11th 2009 2:45PM]

totally love the Know Your Rights stuff,
great that its back :)

[a ham sandwich @ Feb 11th 2009 5:10PM]

agreed! its my favorite recurring article on engadget!

[K@0s @ Feb 11th 2009 2:45PM]

If they are not careful their greed will hurt them like it did the music industry.

[Rocketboy @ Feb 11th 2009 2:50PM]

Dear Books On Tape:

Start reading (aloud) books on horse buggies.

[Pradster @ Feb 11th 2009 2:51PM]

Hey! where is the FUD alert here?

[crawdad689 @ Feb 11th 2009 2:51PM]

did enjoy the article. You funny, Nilay!

[za7ch84 @ Feb 11th 2009 2:52PM]

Ha, Nilay... good post.

[dave @ Feb 11th 2009 2:52PM]

As I understand it, don't companies have to protect their IP whenever it is infringed upon, or risk losing its protected status? Xerox, I believe, got caught up in this, no? Isn't this what Monster Cables argues (albeit with a trademark) every time it sues everybody over having some combination of "m" "o" "n" "s" "t" "e" "r" appears in a firm's name?

So, wouldn't deciding not to sue others with text-to-speech capabilities undermine a potential case?

[Jon @ Feb 11th 2009 2:54PM]

That only applies to trademarks.

[Rocketboy @ Feb 12th 2009 11:19AM]

that does not even apply to trademarks.

[Gazoobee @ Feb 11th 2009 2:56PM]

I find the "know your rights" sections funny, but informative or authoritative they are not. The arguments presented here are patently ridiculous.

Speech technology has been around for many years and it's improved slightly but there are barriers that it can never surmount. To assume that someday it will be the same as real reading is just foolish, it would require artificial intelligence at minimum and the computer would have to grow a personality. No one who knows anything about the field would really ever suggest this.

Even if the tech existed in the future, it doesn't exist now so it does not affect the argument.

Similarly, you can't force people to pay for a possible use of a product. It's unconstitutional in the US and Canada at minimum (although that didn't stop the stupid Canadian government from imposing a tax on audio tapes and CD's which is pretty much the same false argument). if I buy a test to read it's patently immoral and unfair to expect me to pay for the possibility that I might also listen to it.

Froitag is right. Data is data.

If Amazon caves to this kind of fear-mongering, bigger fool them. If they took it to court they would win hands down.

Most likely is that they will do what they did with the aforementioned CD's and tapes and levy it as a fee on the end consumer, knowing full well that the end consumer has not got the money to fight it in court. Thus Amazon satisfies the whiners in the audiobook "market" and doesn't have to pay a dime themselves.

It would be nice if some company like Amazon stood up for their customers once in a while though. Capitalism rocks!

[Jon @ Feb 11th 2009 3:02PM]

It's great having a bona fide copyright law attorney commenting. Thanks for your insight.

[NeoteriX @ Feb 11th 2009 3:47PM]

"I find the "know your rights" sections funny, but informative or authoritative they are not. The arguments presented here are patently ridiculous."

Show us your law degree and then you can decide what is patently ridiculous or authoritative. Nilay has presented the state of the law as it stands today; as an attorney, I can independently assure you of that.

There is a difference between "the Law" (as derived from the copyright statutes and case law) and policy. If you think the current copyright law is stupid, illogical, and "ridiculous" (no argument there), then you have a problem with its policies. If so, please write to your congressmen to have them change it to something that makes sense.

[Flit @ Feb 11th 2009 4:05PM]

Also, what about the MIDI arguement that is made, Is it legal to distribute MIDI versions of songs? I've seen sites that distribute MIDI versions of songs, but they might not have been legal :D

[Bruce Lewis @ Feb 11th 2009 5:00PM]

NeoteriX, I haven't seen your law degree either.

Luckily for us non-lawyers this particular question doesn't require a deep knowledge of case law or anything. You can just read Title 17 and see that there's no infringement here. I don't see why Nilay is waffling about this. See my straightforward analysis at http://ourdoings.com/ourdoings-startup/2009-02-11

[Scott Beckstead @ Feb 11th 2009 5:29PM]

You obviously don't know what you are talking about or just don't pay attention to the world around you. AI professionals can and do develop specialized AI all the time.

The algorithm that picks the best route for you in a GPS is a specialized AI just for map interpreting, there is one that can act like a soldier or player in a limited game situation or even in a sport. A general AI that can read a book with feeling and hold an intelligent emotional conversation, maybe never, but a specialized one that can parse a text for clues to emotion and punctuation, very very likely.

Simulating the emotion that you parse from a book is easy. Holding a conversation with this thing would be impossible but it could read you the text as a person would and even do voices for different speakers. We've done a pretty good job of writing down the emotions and if we can parse it a computer can. Just wait it will happen and not so long from now..

[John @ Feb 11th 2009 2:54PM]

Idiocy. If I can pay a man to read me a book, why can't I pay Amazon (by buying their device) to read me a book. At any rate, Amazon is selling their books and making them money so this is just pointless veniality. Maybe next they should sue to stop the printing of "large print" editions because just buying the book doesn't give you the right to read it with big letters.

[darklighter @ Feb 11th 2009 3:00PM]

You CAN'T pay a man to read you a book; that's the whole point here.

[ashowofhands @ Feb 11th 2009 3:07PM]

@darklighter of course you CAN pay someone to read a book to you, it's just that nobody realistically would. Technically I could pay someone to run me over with a cement truck, even though i wouldn;t.

[phanbouy fan fan @ Feb 11th 2009 3:08PM]

well, in this economy...

[CraigJ @ Feb 11th 2009 3:08PM]

Yes, you can. What you cannot do is pay a man to read you a book then distribute the recordings, or, pay a man to read a book at a public event.