The Engadget Interview: Paul Aiken, Executive Director of the Authors Guild

As you're no doubt aware, this week's launch of the Kindle 2 came complete with copyright controversy -- the Authors Guild says that Amazon's text-to-speech features will damage the lucrative audiobook market. To be perfectly frank, we're of two minds on on this debate: on one hand, we're obviously all for the relentless progression of technology, and on the other, we sussed out the fundamental reasons for the Guild's objections almost immediately. It's pretty easy to find the first set of arguments online, but we wanted to make sure we weren't missing anything, so we sat down with Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken and asked him some burning questions. Read on!
So, everyone's dying to know -- have you or the other directors of the Authors Guild actually listened to the Kindle 2's text-to-speech? Would you actually sit down and listen to an entire book read by it? Who do you think will?

Sure we have! We posted a demo of the Kindle reading from Jeff Bezo's presentation on February 9th, compared to the same bit of text -- part of the Gettysburg Address -- read by earlier text-to-speech software built into Mac OS a few years ago. We were curious how much progress the technology's made, and to our ears it's made a generational leap -- it's much better than it was. What we're looking at is the trend here, where it's headed, how good will it be three, four, five years out from now and the threat that might pose to the audiobook industry.

Does the Authors Guild currently have a Kindle 2 apart from what you've posted online of the presentation?

Yes, would you like to hear it? (laughs) I was listening to it this morning!

So you're not specifically worried about the Kindle 2.

Of course we're worried about the Kindle 2. For one thing, Amazon can upgrade the software anytime they like; for another, whether or not this poses an immediate threat to the current audiobook industry, text-to-speech still is and should be a legitimate market for authors and publishers. Just because Amazon does something a bit clever with their ebook reader and adds technology which allows them to render text into speech doesn't mean they get to exploit it for all it's worth, without sharing with authors and publishers. In our view this is a legitimate market.

So would you call this a legal objection or an economic one?

There's legal objections and there's economic, or business objections.

Can you delineate what your legal objections are?

Well, the legal objections fall in a couple categories. One is the basic copyright objection which I know has been bandied about a lot online, and that objection comes in two parts. There's the unauthorized reproduction of the work which is one claim under copyright law -- for that there has to be fixation of the copy and there's a legal question as to whether or not there's adequate fixation in the Kindle. The second claim is that text-to-speech creates a derivative work, and under most theories of copyright law, there doesn't have to be fixation for there to be a derivative work created.

So what you're really saying is that the Kindle affects the market of people who are buying both the printed book and an audiobook. Is that actually something you're concerned about or are you saying that by buying an ebook you should not also get rights to an audiobook?

There's no reason in an industry you should be stuck with the markets you have today. As technology develops, one hopes to have new markets. Whether or not this displaces the print market or the audiobook market is only part of the question -- the other question is whether there's a new market here that authors and publishers should legitimately have and whether Amazon is trying to preempt that with this product. You can look at it as the hybrid ebook / audiobook market, which is essentially now what Amazon has come out with -- a hybrid ebook with a low quality audiobook packaged with it. It could be that you can take entire texts, run'em through text-to-speech software and create a quick audiobook that can be downloaded or sold as CDs.

I think that goes back to your original two legal arguments -- you would definitely be fixing a derivative work in that case, but here the Kindle 2 is just reading what somebody has already purchased. Do you see the distinction between those two things? I don't think anybody thinks you should be able to record text-to-speech and then sell that.

Right, okay, but how much of a market is there if Amazon is giving away that product for free? All you have to do is pay $350 and buy the Kindle.

You think people will actually record the Kindle 2 and distribute those recordings?

Oh, do I think people will go from the Kindle 2 and record and play? I don't know what people will do, but that's not really the issue or the basis of our complaint about it.

So your fundamental complaint with the Kindle 2 right now is that it is creating audiobooks. It's replacing the market for audiobooks.

No, let me be clear: it has the potential to replace audiobooks. I don't know if it's good enough at the moment to do that. It certainly could in the future with one or two generations of software, I don't know how quick that'll happen. It could have a significant impact on the audiobook market. But, beyond that...

Would you sit down and listen to the Kindle 2 read an entire book to you right now?

I haven't listened to it long enough to make that sort of judgment yet. I doubt it. I mostly read books, I'm not much of an audiobook consumer. I guess a bit for my kids I am.

This seems like a free rider problem to me, where you have people who are now getting something that they would have had to pay for before -- previously you had to buy two things and now you only have to buy one. Do you see a market right now of people who are buying both the print and the audio version of a book?

I would imagine that's a small market.

If there's any market, if there's any royalties that are going to diminish right now, it would be that market, wouldn't it?

Without knowing people's preferences it's hard to say. I mean it could be that someone who would've bought an audiobook will say, "Well the Kindle version's a lot cheaper, and the quality just doesn't matter too much to me, so I'll pay $10 for the Kindle version of the audiobook rather than $35 for the regular audiobook."

Are you worried about that right now? The Kindle 2's text-to-speech is pretty bad, I think that's the sticking point for a lot of our readers.

It's not for me or anyone else to decide that. It's a matter of consumers' taste, and we've heard a variety of responses on that from "it's much better than I thought" to "it's god-awful." I think it's quite subjective as to how listenable the current Kindle is.

But either way, when people purchase content on the Kindle, the authors are getting a sale. Isn't it for the best to let people consume content however they want, as long as the authors are getting paid in the end? You're potentially getting a new market, a new sale.

Sure. If Amazon had talked to people here's how it might have worked for launch of Kindle 2. Text-to-speech could've been a simple point-of-purchase add on: You buy the ebook, you want the additional text-to-speech functionality, fine, you check a box, you pay an extra $1.75 and that's turned on for that particular ebook. It takes care of all sorts of problems, not just the legal problems. It takes care of contractual problems that are quite complex that no one knows how to untangle with the way hybrid products are being sold.

You're calling it a hybrid product, when it's really just a book.

There are electronic rights involved and there are audio rights involved.

This leads right into the next question -- you've got ebook sales happening right now on computers that can do text-to-speech. So are you going to go after Apple, after Microsoft?

Of course not. There's a fundamental difference between a text-to-speech on a general use machine, such as a Mac or a PC, and a dedicated device that is intended primarily for consuming books.

What's the difference?

The difference is that there are audio rights involved in the books -- the Kindle converts every book that's sold into something other than just an ebook.

But if I buy an ebook on the Mac, which I can do...

Which you can do but not for a lot of books.

So you're saying that the difference is not actually the device, it's the size of the market?

The difference is the channel. For example, many publishers do not have the audio rights or the multimedia rights when they sell electronic books. If they sell files that go into a Kindle and they know its going to use a audio capability that is exclusively licensed to somewhere else, the publisher has a problem, because the author has licensed it somewhere else.

But the license the author and the publisher grant is the license to prepare a derivative work that ultimately becomes an audio recording. Here, there may be no license required because the Kindle is just reading. What is the difference in your mind between the Kindle reading and the consumer reading?

For one thing, the Kindle can function as a pure audiobook player if you wanted it to. You could cover up the screen and have it just play out as an audiobook. So what kind of file has been sold to the Kindle? Is it an ebook file or is it an audiobook file? It's a hybrid file -- it's both. You give it a bunch of digits and it converts it into a display, or into audio. It does both.

But again, with a regular book, you can read it out loud or you can read it to yourself.

Of course and that's absolutely fine.

And I don't think that the Authors Guild has any objection to people purchasing a book and reading it out loud to their kids.

(laughs) The Authors Guild has never had any objections to reading books out loud to your kids! In fact, I do it every night myself.

So the Kindle is doing the same thing the consumer would do. The consumer takes the "digits" and turns them into a book or a performance -- so what's the difference between the Kindle and the average person either reading or performing the book?

We're just not going to agree on this. As we see it, the difference is, the machine playing an audio version that the publisher often does not have the right to sell. They do not have the multimedia or audio right that goes with the electronic book. As a matter of contract, we have a problem and as a matter of copyright, we have a problem.

I'm certain you've taken a long look at what's happened in the music industry, and what's now happening in the film industry. Is there a reason that you would want to fight technology at this juncture as opposed to actively...

We don't want to fight it, we want it to be licensed. We think the lesson from the music industry is to make stuff available at reasonable price, and that's what we want to do. We want to enable this market, but we don't want Amazon to take control of it by default. We think it's something that is rightfully the rights holders' to license.

Have you spoken to Amazon? What's been the response?

I'm not going to discuss communication with Amazon.

But you'll say that you have communicated with Amazon.

Yes.

Amazon owns Audible, which is the largest seller of audiobooks. Doesn't it seem a little incongruous of the Authors Guild to claim that Amazon is trying to destroy the market for audiobooks when they profit immensely from it?

Sure. They see ebook as a potentially bigger market than audiobooks.

Does the Authors Guild think that's true?

There's nothing inconsistent if that's their view. If they think ebooks are going to be a more important market than audiobooks then what they're doing might make perfect sense.

It sounds like fundamentally the Authors Guild is looking for a payment -- not necessarily an ajudication from a court, but a straightforward payment of increased license fees for an ebook edition to cover the potential lost sales of an audiobook.

Well, this is a new market. You keep coming back to loss of audiobook sales, but that's not necessarily the way this should go. In any business you try not to play a zero-sum game, you're trying to grow markets. Publishing, like many other media industries, needs revenue sources.

So you see four markets: print books, ebooks, audiobooks and now text-to-speech ebooks?

Text-to-speech ebooks and potentially text to speech pure audiobooks.

And you think those will be cheaper than the performed audiobooks and that people will buy them.

I would imagine.

What's the feedback from members of the Authors Guild been?

They have been overwhelmingly positive and supportive of our position.

So the vocal dissenters that we've heard, are not...

They're few and far between.

What's your ideal resolution to this debate? What would you tell the average consumer who sees the Authors Guild saying that he -- and this is the perception -- that he shouldn't be allowed to read a book?

They can read a book! Of course they can read a book. We've never taken a position other than that they're allowed to read a book aloud to their kids. Private performances are unregulated by copyright law. We feel the ideal solution is one where there's an add-on for electronic books and text-to-speech functionality and the market is enabled for that functionality.

[CJ Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:35PM]

Meh.

I've always hated Audiobooks, they seem to me to be a way for people who ordinarily don't have the patience to sit down with a good book to appear like they read.

Even when I was a kid, I used to ditch those stupid 'when you hear the chime, turn the page' tapes, and just read the goddamned book!

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:45PM]

Patience? I don't have any patience trying to read a novel whilst driving in my car. Audiobooks serve a very useful purpose in this instance.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:56PM]

@Jeff
When I read an interesting book, my mind is elsewhere and I'm not very aware of on my surroundings. If an audiobook can do the same, than it's just as dangerous as talking on a cell phone while you drive. Your brain isn't dual core, you can only give your full attention to one task at a time.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:29PM]

@Roman: So, you don't use your car stereo, I assume. Or talk to or listen to passengers.

@CJ: Your phrasing sounds like you'd rather maintain your elitism attained by reading books than have them be more accessible to other people. We get it, you read books, you're a freaking genius.

[0megapartcle Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:04PM]

I think the main point is that it takes much more concentration to listen to books than to listen to music. I think it is a very valid concern.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:43PM]

I work with several people who have lost their sight for a variety of reasons - no amount of patience is going to enable them to read a book but audio books let them continue to enjoy literature.

The stance of the Authors Guild is worrying as they seem to be saying that people with disabilities that require screen readers or similar shouldn't be allowed to access their content.

[Lord Admiral Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:36PM]

There's a difference between passive and active listening. Popular music only requires passive listening, especially if you're already familiar with the tune and lyrics.

Appreciation of classical music requires active listening. People do listen to it in a passive context all the time, but that's not the same type of listening.

Audiobooks, I've noticed, does require a significant amount of concentration, nearly as much as talking on the cell phone. The only difference is you can switch to passive listening (tuning out) occasionally and fill in the blanks later, while with the phone, you need to hear the entire thing to formulate an appropriate response.

It is definitely more active listening than passive listening, but maybe not as dangerous as talking on the phone.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:44PM]

Everyone is talking about how greedy the Authors Guild is, and how they just want a cut of the profits, but what I don't think a lot of people are realizing is that authors don't make a staggering amount of money like music artists might. They don't get much of that $7.99 paperback you buy, and I wager they don't get much out of that audiobook either. Regardless, every penny counts, and when you're talking about people potentially not buying audiobooks in the future, it makes sense for the authors guild to stand up now and say, you better raise the price of the book so that we're not losing money from our lost audiobook sales here. Sure, the publishers are getting less too, but they're always going to get more than the authors, and it's important that the authors get enough money for their work. I wouldn't mind paying an extra $2 in the future for an ebook that also gives me a good audiobook. But until that happens, it's not taking sales away from audiobooks, and I don't want to pay it. My point is, that this issue clearly has two sides, and I don't think anyone should be dismissing one side or the other right off the bat and dissing it relentlessly.

[Vidikron Posted Feb 27th 2009 4:27PM]

The debate about listening to an audiobook in the car aside, there are other circumstances where audiobooks are handy. For example, I always listen to audiobooks when I'm exercising. I almost always have two books going... one I'm reading and one I listen to when working out. And I've found that only listening to the audiobook while working out keeps me motivated to keep working out because I want to hear more of the story. Anyway, that's just one example... I'm sure other people listen to them while cleaning house, working in the yard, etc.... CJ is way off base.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 28th 2009 9:04AM]

@salmoncannon

The point is not content but quality. A professional audio book has voice actors in a studio. They also go through great lengths to "act" the parts. They personalize each character with their voice and set the proper tone. Tom. Does none of this. They are not comparable in the amount of prep and quality of the performance. It would be like seeing Cats on broadway and then paying a license fee to see 5th graders recreate it at your local highschool.

As long as these companies continue to keep slathering these devices with all sorts of DRM.. people are going to shy away..

Now will text to speech work on an unlicensed file? such as my own personal writing or do I have to DRM it and then license it to myself?

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 28th 2009 11:31AM]

I think it's a legitimate claim Paul Aiken is making. However, in my opinion, I just think that Amazon should charge $2 extra or so for the 'audiobook' rights. Otherwise, just disable it. The fatcats get their cut, the people don't feel the hurt unless they were planning on using it for an audiobook the whole time, and it doesn't really cost that much more. No fuss, no muss.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 28th 2009 11:32AM]

Sounds to me like the Authors Guild would be more than happy to let the audiobook market go to shit as long as they can profit off of a computer doing all the work for them.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:37PM]

I still call bullshit. I bought the text. If I want my computer or and assistant to read it to me that's my business. These guys are a bunch of douchebags.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:41PM]

Yes, I suck at typing. and = an.

Seriously, I hope these nimrods sue Amazon and get made fools of. Of course, that requires an intelligent Judge and Jury, so Amazon would probably get screwed.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:11PM]

You miss the point. The Authors Guild isn't trying to keep YOU from doing whatever you want with the file you buy, they are simply trying to get their rightful cut of what AMAZON is selling. Can anyone seriously argue that Amazon isn't seeing at least some amount of extra profit based on the Kindle's ability to read the book out loud? Part of selling a Kindle is saying "hey, you can either read the file you download by yourself, or this thing can read it to you!" People who probably would NEVER take the time to figure out how to upload a text file into a text-to-speech program go "wow, cool, I want one." Part of the Kindle's appeal to the general public is it's ability to "magically" read the book to you. Now, I obviously haven't seen the licenses, but I think it's safe to assume that Amazon has only licensed the rights to the texts of these author's works (or at least HAS NOT licensed any audio rights), but now Amazon is profiting from an audio version of the work.

I think the point is that Amazon is reaping genuine benefits from selling what, at the end of the day, is an audio version of the book that AMAZON hasn't paid the authors for, and the authors want their cut. I can't say I hold that against them.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:35PM]

I think their stance is perfectly reasonable once I read it. They see a slippery slope, and when you're dealing with legal rights, you've got to intervene in the process as early as possible. If they let this first version go by, and then they let the second version go by, and then the third version comes out with an amazing new inflection algorithm that rivals the quality of audiobooks recorded by professional voice actors, they don't have much recourse. By stepping in now, they can establish early on that this can potentially give Amazon more rights to the content than the contract allows.

They don't seem to be seeking damages. They seem to want to limit the rights to the content to what was explicitly spelled out in contract.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:36PM]

@G-Money: sorry man thats complete BS only thing that happens after this is the price of the book goes up. And audiobooks are mad expensive (often times more expensive than the kindle books).

This is just ANOTHER case of an industries obsolescence due to tech. why cant these fools just evolve and offer something new, rather than trying to sue their way into a living.

What happened to this nation of innovators? I'm so tired of laziness, if audiobooks want to offer something more, dramatize them, hire voice actors, add sound effects. MAKE it WORTH buying. because text to voice is just going to get better and better, so you're "storyteller" approach is due to die soon.

[egghead Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:02PM]

Q. What is the Kindle?
A. Nothing more than a computer designed with the display of eBooks as its main function.

Q.What is a PC?
A. Nothing more than a computer designed with the general functionality afforded by any loaded software.

So are we now saying that just because the main/intended use of the computer is for displaying an eBook, the eBook text has magically transformed into a hybrid electronic/audio book? What if I were to design a program for general use PCs that is designed to display an eBook and provided an easy interface for built-in text-to-speech? Are they going to then complain that all eBooks need to have this audio option enabled through a micropayment?

It is sad this guy is so afraid of technology. His quote, "We don't want to fight it, we want it to be licensed." just shows his ineptitude in understanding how to leverage emerging technologies. He is falling into the same trap that the music industry is in. They want things to remain the same and squeeze every last penny out of what they currently have instead of actively seeking new revenue streams.

I could sit here all day and burn holes in this guy's arguments, but I have to get back to work.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:18PM]

What if I create a program that understands a library of objects, shapes, textures, rendering methods, and converts algorithmically the adjectives and language of a scene from a book into art? I could go out and photograph a huge amount of stuff, then create a complex system of filters and whatnot, etc.

So, in the end, I would be creating a visual representation of a book automatically. But what happens if that rivals existing artwork? What happens when it evolves to include digitally created actors acting out scenes in greater and greater detail? Do movie companies want to sue me because I made something that can create a movie out of words that is functionally similar but quite different? Will artists sue me?

What if it was a robot that paints these images? Or act them out?

I would think the thing to worry about, in the end, is the obsolescence of people. Will we throw away technology to reach this goal or find ways to turn it into 'markets' and obfusciate what it really is?

The ultimate problem is that the Kindle is the target because it is popular. But in a few years any and every device will have text to speech capabilities as things trickle down. It always happens. And at that point you've lost the war unless you want to sue every manufacturer of PMPs or other media devices.

[Centipede Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:58PM]

@G-Money: No, I don't think the text to speech has anything to do with the Kindle2 sales whatsoever. It sucks. The selling point of the Kindle and Kindle2 is that you can essentially carry a library in your pocket.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 7:39PM]

Isnt the Kindle reading to me a private performances?

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 28th 2009 11:30PM]

Totally agreed. What if somebody invent a robot that can also read to you? What do they do?

[R V Posted Feb 28th 2009 1:56AM]

There are no more switchboard operators- There will be no more audiobooks.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 28th 2009 2:51PM]

Agreed. At issue, in my mind at least, is the dual use nature of technology, and the growing awakening that we never "owned" the content we purchased. You have never bought a book (content) in your life, you've merely payed for certain rights pertaining the use of that book, and some dead trees. For hundreds of years, that was never in people's mind. Copyright was present, but easy to enforce, because violation involved the physical reproduction and transport of the product. Now, there is an exciting new way of connecting people to content, but one that is ludicrously easy and cheap to copy. Part of this is about money, after all, who wants their profitable business to become less profitable? But the other part is that publishers saw themselves as adding value to the books they sold by erecting barriers to entry. Not just anyone could publish a book. Publishers acted as the gatekeepers, keeping bad (less profitable) books out, and promoting good (more profitable) books. The good writers made millions, and the bad writers lived in cardboard boxes. Now, that's all changed. Now we (you and I) are the gatekeepers. We can evaluate and post reviews on books, share our thoughts, and reward good authors directly. We've completely circumvented the NEED for publishers. The market will be (and already is) much larger, and consequently, profitability will be much lower per book written, but more authors will move out of cardboard boxes and into houses. They won't be rich, but they'll earn a decent wage. This is exactly what will happen with all media, movies, music, books, magazines, and even software (thought to a lesser extent)

[Iceman Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:40PM]

This interview is going in circles.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:37PM]

Agree. I've read it twice, and I still don't understand what exactly his argument is.

[badweasel Posted Feb 27th 2009 3:18PM]

It's a total fail. They don't have any real ground to stand on. The simple fact that it's completely legal for me to read a book to my kids and they agree with that, but they want extra money to have a robot read it. It is BS and they will lose this war. They better lose!

What about a possible technology where a robot could read a paperback out loud? Would they then want an additional license fee for that? And how would you measure that.

Even if the Kindle voice was just as good as James Earl Jones, it's still a robot reading to me, which should not be an additional license. I've said it in these comments before, the reason an audio book should cost more is that there was an actual performance by a voice artist or an actor. As such there are fees that have to be paid for the initial performance and the residuals. There's no fee to pay an actor for the Kindle voice, unless of course the Kindle voice is licensed FROM James Earl Jones and then that's a different thing. But still nothing that has to do with some writer's union.

FAIR RIGHTS FOR ROBOT READERS!!!

[Brad Hubbard Posted Feb 27th 2009 5:22PM]

What we see here is the classic "buggy whip"* issue. We see an industry that is threatened because technology is, in the not too distant future, going to make them obsolete. Note that this isn't AUTHORS that are going to go by the wayside, but SALES FROM AUDIOBOOKS. Why are audiobooks expensive, anyway? Because good voice talent is expensive, and it is a relatively small market in which to recover the cost of someone with good oratory skills. Remember, this won't hurt eBook (or regular book) sales. It can only help them.

This is EXACTLY the same fight that is currently happening with the RIAA and MPAA - the desire to control every possible way you consume media that YOU PURCHASED, and charge you for every version. I mean, doesn't this sound a whole lot like the battle over using MP3s as ringtones? Or ripping CDs to put on your iPod? Or ripping DVDs to put on your mobile player / laptop? Or any other battle where an old industry is trying to arbitrarily profit over something that can be done easily and freely done with technology? First they try and monetize it (just pay us more for something you can already do for free), then they fight it legally (you're stealing from artists!!!), then they accept it (sometimes).

*Buggy whip: a common example of an ancillary industry that dried up as a result of new technology affecting the primary market - the manufacturers of whips used to drive buggies and horse-teams almost completely evaporated as a result of the car replacing the horse as a major method of transportation.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 6:58PM]

I agree Iceman, not only is this interview going in circles, but Mr. Patel is approaching the interview and subject in a very sophomoric way (no offense intended Nilay).

Paul Aiken is attempting to explain the contractual, copyright, and business reasoning behind the Authors Guild position; aspects of which are clearly explained and delineated, and aspects of which are not. In response, Nilay brings up questions such as the right of individuals reading books aloud and to their children, or the Authors Guild harboring a desire to fight new technology and new markets. I'm not sure why Nilay, of all Engadget writers, is having difficulty with a company or organization that wants to protect copyright, that has issues with contractual obligations, that wants appropriate compensation when work is employed in another manner which was not originally envisioned or accounted for by either their model or their contract, and is not looking to fight Amazon or destroy a potential burgeoning market, but desires appropriate protection and payment of authors work in that new medium. I'm not trying to make arguments for the Authors Guild, or Amazon, and frankly I believe that an open discussion between the different parties which is honest and forward-looking is probably healthy at this point.

That said, I've seen a number of Engadget readers talk about what they 'want' and 'demand'... fine, they can want and demand all they like, after all that is a basic tenet of being a consumer. HOWEVER, there are often legal and business considerations that go beyond, or perhaps come between, a product or service and what the consumer wants or needs. It's not to say that the consumer has no rights, or that their desires are without merit, but discussing (not suggesting that Nilay is) an issue like this primarily in terms of "I want X", or "I demand Y" is not really appropriate or germane -- unless you're a 14 yr old.

My two cents,
Fraggle

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:40PM]

Thanks for posting this, I really enjoyed this interview.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:44PM]

$35 for an AUDIOBOOK? christ, has this dude never heard of Audible? They way I see it.. I use Audible to buy books I want to hear (at about $10 or $15 a book) and amazon for the ones I want to read (oh.. surprise, $10-15 a book). I call bull on the whole thing.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 3:37PM]

Also... come to think of it, the only thing I might really use the text to speech for is doing the NYTimes during my morning commute... to hell with them if they want to complain about that, because no one is going to be doing Daily audio recordings of a newspaper, there just aren't enough hours in a day.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:45PM]

who listens to audiobooks? I don't know why, but they always get douchebags to record them. When you read the book, you can go at your own pace, and you don't have to listen to annoying rejects.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:48PM]

If they continue down this path I only see it ending up in the Authors guild vs. the users confrontation like we currently have with the Music Industry vs. the supposed pirates. Both the authors guild and music industry have valid concerns but trying to enforce them heavy-handedly only serves to turn your user base against you, and renew efforts to improve the software in question - am I the only person expecting there to be a huge step up in efforts to improving text to audio software after all this media attention? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and the Author's guild is going down a strikingly similar path to that the music industry took years ago and look how well it turned out for them...

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:51PM]

Quoting him, "We've never taken a position other than that they're allowed to read a book aloud to their kids. Private performances are unregulated by copyright law." This helps point out the flaw in his argument. He's taking the position that these ebook readers, which can do text-to-speech, actually create another file. This was clear in everything he said in the interview. This isn't true. A performance of an ebook reader by just translating the characters into speech does not create another file which is saved or anything, so there's no derivative work. It's just a performance.

Now if the Kindle saved these text-to-speech performances as files that could be accessed later, THEN he would have a point. But from what I know, it doesn't do that. So right now a Kindle translation would be a private performance.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:15PM]

Bingo. That's the biggest legal flaw in his argument.

There's quite a few business flaws in his argument, but that's the giant gaping hole in his legal argument.

[F orrest Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:42PM]

Exactly. The audio rights he's talking about regarding a written work should be for PUBLICATION. The core distinction I think is whether the text-to-speech capability of the Kindle serves as a means for audio publication for a written work or if it serves as a private performance. It raises an interesting question - how is being read to by the Kindle (my digital personal assistant) different from being read to by a human personal assistant?

I would understand if it was their desire to protect their IP, but the simple fact is that they are trying to create new revenue where there is currently no market. They've chosen the wrong device for their target because the device they really need to go after doesn't exist yet. They should certainly keep in mind licensing for devices whose primary (or even secondary) purpose is to create from plain text an audio representation that rivals traditional audio books, but they're jumping the gun.

If they really want to grow their market in this area they would offer for purchase a modified version of the book that sounds better when read by text-to-speech software. They could modify punctuation and spelling of words so that the output is closer to the author's intent. That would actually provide some value.

I can already see where this is headed...they'll incorporate DRM for text-to-speech so that you have to check that box during checkout and pay the extra. I think they may be surprised just how few people would check that box, though.

[GreatSunJester Posted Feb 27th 2009 3:00PM]

Also -- they would be laughed out of court if they tried to force fees upon people reading out loud. However, Amazon is a nice, rich single target that they hope will roll over and settle up.

[Musicman247 Posted Feb 27th 2009 4:49PM]

Forrest: I think your points are exactly the points they are trying to make.

The device they really should be going after does not yet exist - but if they wait until such a device comes out, there may be an over-saturation of devices similar to the Kindle, which would have precident leaning away from the authors. By going after the Kindle now, they are trying to block any "revenue stealing" by any future device.

They seem to not care whether you "check that box": or not. They just would like to have some control over their work. Amazon did not write the books, and ultimately should not control in what fomat they appear. The authors are the ones who spent months or years creating these works, and they should have some say in how these works are handled.

Now, I'm not saying that they are in the right, nor am I saying that Amazon is. I think this is a very gray area of copyright law since a device for this purpose and capabilities has not existed yet. I think both parties need to sit down and talk about this and work something out, otherwise there may be no ebooks for anyone to purchase (not likely, but still possible).

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:53PM]

Good interview except for the whole circular conversation part. I'm glad something like this has popped up again. I hate how the consumers gets screwed when it comes to media. If I buy a cd, or dvd I want to be able to use it how I like. I don't want to pay for the same movie three times so I can watch it on my television, laptop, and iphone.

Same goes for these ebooks. The Kindle is an amazing device and just because they added a mediocre text to speech feature people shit bricks. If I wanted to actually hear an audiobook I would want it done by the author considering the emphasize he can use and how much more of an experience it would be then a computerized voice that takes the words you bought and says them.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 7:35PM]

This is the major problem with most "consumer" arguments. It's all based on what "I want." When you buy a DVD. You are not purchasing the movie. You are purchasing a copy of the movie and certain rights enabling you to play the movie in certain ways. If you want to buy "the movie" it's going to cost you a lot more than twelve dollars.

And who are the people on this blog who are constantly talking about how ABC company isn't interested in the consumer's interests... No shit!!! What do you people do for a living? Businesses are only interested in pleasing consumers to the point that they can retain their business. That's how business works. If a company does a really good job of pleasing the consumers, they'll get a lot of business (Apple) but they're not pleasing the consumers for the consumer's benefit, they're pleasing them for their own benefit.

Engadget comments are usually almost entirely consumer-interest minded. The fact that there are a significant number of people seeing the Author's Guild's point on this, indicates that they're going to win this one.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:51PM]

God damned lawyers. Throw 'em all off a cliff, and they'll sue you on the way down.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:56PM]

On a related note, several folks are asking who listens to audio books. I do, but I read also. I can only (safely) do one of those activities while driving, though. And as to "losers" recording them? Many times it's the author him/herself who reads the books. The majority of the remaining ones are read by professional voice actors. Yeah, sure every once in a while you'll run across a good book slaughtered on audio by James Woods, but usually the audio recording detracts nothing. It's really what you get used to.

Oh yeah - blind people also listen to audio books, but I don't think they'll really be abusing Kindle's text-to-speech ability.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:54PM]

So, in some future, if a robot is sophisticated enough to sit by your child's bed and read them a story, the robot better cough up some extra dough first.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:58PM]

Worse yet - sue the teachers and volunteers who read books aloud to children at school, the library, or the bookstore.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:07PM]

Ahh, but what if the robot is a parent, and that parent reads the words the Kindle's screen aloud to their children?

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:20PM]

But if the robot is a parent, then so to (at least partly) is their child - and at that point they wouldn't be communicating in such an efficient way - they'd probably hook up using an interface cable. Why did Michael Jackson just pop into my head?!?

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:45PM]

Robots can have children!?

[PapaSteveZ Posted Feb 27th 2009 3:25PM]

No....your kid has to sit there and put quarters into the robot till it finishes the story...

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:54PM]

I really don't know what the big fuss is about. Text-to-speech sounds unemotional and people who buy audiobooks want to hear the rhythm of the prose and the personality of someone reciting the book. Text-to-speech is a nice perk, but like your grandmother doing kareokae (sp?) of Metallica's Enter Sandman, it's missing something.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:54PM]

Great interview! Good questions and the guy from the guild did a good job in answering.

While I think this is a valid point of discussion, the progression of technology will make this moot. Since the guild doesn't have a problem with reading ebooks on a general purpose machine like a computer, their argument will disappear when general purpose machines are just like the Kindle. At this rate it shouldn't be too long either.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:55PM]

Incredible. He simply chooses to ignore the fact that the only market that TTS is hurting is the one filled with those people who buy both the audiobook AND the print/ebook version - and those aren't exactly plentiful ("I would imagine that's a small market.").

Translation: We don't care that you're not hurting anyone (including us or our authors), and are in fact just utilizing ebook reader technology to its fullest extent. We're still going to screw you out of every penny we can...

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:55PM]

Is this thing on?

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:03PM]

I don't think the Authors Guild has a legal leg to stand on (but I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt) because the copyright laws speak of "works" and derivative "works" and the Kindle doesn't reproduce the "work" - just the words that make up the work. The Authors Guild might have a point if the Kindle recorded (internally or at the server) an "audio" version of the work and then simply played it back - i.e. a derivative work (the audio file) was produced. But that is not the case here!

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:58PM]

The whole issue stinks of greed. Here you have the potential to take money out of a lot audio book voice actors (and by association the writer's guild) pockets. It's another way to stifle technology and make people pay for more services they shouldn't have to. If you purposely buy an audio book I understand you pay a price for something that costs money to make (the book and the reader). If you buy an eBook you are paying for the book. The kindle reads it to you. Well, you STILL paid for the book. If audio books are not solid enough on there own to survive then they need to adapt. He points at that and says they will adapt to new markets, but I think the approach is flawed. Don't make people pay for a service that costs nothing to you to provide. All you're doing is making people pay for a service that you can no longer sell them-albeit arguably since the text-to-speech is no where near a human voice. That's like making people pay an extra $1.75 for the option of burning an MP3 album to a CD because you can no longer sell them a physical CD after they have bought the song online. It's ridiculous.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:59PM]

As a fan of audio books (trust me CJ, it's little to do with patience and everything to do with time), I could never ever listen to the Kindle read me a book. However, the guild has a point. If you say it's okay now, what do you do when technology allows the device to read the book at a level near that of a professionally recorded audio book? You can't put Pandora back as it were.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 12:59PM]

Reading this, it has become clear to me that the Author's Guild has no legitimate point and is just making a play at sucking more out of what they see as a new lucrative market. It's funny how clearly bad their position is made when they try to defend it.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:03PM]

This guy is a perfect example of someone who isn't interested in his customers as much as interested on how can he manipulate the situation for more profit. If he came up with the idea first, fine charge additional fees for a device to read the text, but he didn't. This is all regardless of the fact that people who are interested in hearing an audiobook will not purchase an ebook to hear it read by a soulless piece of machinery. The audiobooks I've heard sound more like radio plays with different sounding character voices and/or audio effects. Is a computer going to figure that out?

Here's an author's perspective:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/02/end-of-audiobook-argument.html

[Fingal Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:54PM]

And THAT is why I Love Neil Gaiman.

[Vidikron Posted Feb 27th 2009 5:29PM]

"A computer reading to you is a computer reading to you. And at the point where they can read books to us as well as we can read them aloud to each other, we will have other things to worry about."

Neil is spot on with that statement.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:03PM]

LOL, nice philosophical questions there. Still how can it compete with an audiobook that has tone and emotion? If you read books your standards can't possibly be that low. The speech to text would actually ruin the story. I don't think we will see speech to text audio on the level of a audiobook for atleast a decade. And it definitely won't cost $350.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:24PM]

It's true - the TTS doesn't do justice. I just listened to my 4th porn story on the K2, and still nothing, nadda, nil.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:04PM]

And here lies the fundamental problem. The license for the audio version is not the same thing he is talking about. For an audiobook, you are paying for two licenses, a) the license for the written work, and b) a license for the performance of the person reading it (the person is reading it to you, and whoever owns that performance gets paid). The problem with this gentleman's argument is that the portion of the license that goes to the performance, in most cases, does not go to the writer - rather to whomever owns the recorded version. Same thing with music. The songwriter does not own a recording of someone making a cover of his/her song - and only gets a royalty for the part that is the written work.
Now, again, it seems to me that publishers who allow their books to be on the Kindle

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:06PM]

Now, the writer may actually own the recorded performance (especially if they read it themselves), but in most cases, someone completely different does - the publishing company.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:04PM]

If you ever find yourself in the bathroom and in a bind, with no toilet paper and nothing but the pages of a bad book, do NOT tear out the pages and use them as toilet paper. You're not licensed to use the book in that manner. Author's Guild needs a cut of those sweet, sweet tp-book royalties.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:05PM]

this guy is an idiot lol good job patel for getting him with his own words ... basically he jus wants to hate on the kindle2 because of "text-to-speech" when clearly ... its availible to everyone with a effing computer lol "nooo!!! its different when its on a computer, because it wasnt 'ment' for it".ppftttt..... hint** START>controlpanel>speech ...

any way whoever this audiobook guy thinks he is.. he sure as hell doesnt kno what he is talkin about when it comes to computing and technology. hahahah i laugh in his face

thanks nilay for the good laugh and bitch slapping

in all honesty... audiobooks are cool .. if you cant seem to read on your own lol lack of imagination if you will.. reason people purchase is to help KIDS read and get a better understanding but see you pay for a PERSON to record there voice and tell the story with ENTHUSIASM ... not no " You have selected Microsoft Sam as the computer's default voice." haha common, with the knowledge at our fingertips.. thinking shouldnt be that hard this day n age... google it riii :]

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:08PM]

There's a much wider group of people purchasing audiobooks than you think. On my ride to work, while driving, I can't be reading - but I can listen to a book. My commute is an hour to an hour and a half, that becomes a large chunk of a book that I would not have been able to read.
-James

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:39PM]

@james

touche my friend...i didnt mean JUST kids but for general use of audiobooks i refer to kids..... i dont think audiobook industry are going to go out of business because of kindle features.... simply this is a bad arguement to say that this device interferes with good business. when really its jus an ipod for books...

the future of life is to have everything in the comfort of your pocket so that you feel as if you live everywhere and go nowhere :]

[(Unverified) Posted Mar 6th 2009 12:39AM]

Actually, I think the claim of derivative copyright in text-to-speech conversion is highly susceptible to attack. In particular, in order for copyright to attach to anything, including derivative works, there *must* be a an original creative aspect. Fully automated text to speech, by definition, lacks any creativity -- it is in essence simply a very complicated mathematical operation performed on the input text -- or originality -- every time the text-to-speech is used on a work, the result is identical . Distinguish this from audio books, which as a result of being read by a person, with their own interpretation, emotion, and even errors, imparts significant creativity and originality since every reading is a unique event.

Note that the input text to the text-to-speech operation and the software used to perform the operation are still copyrighted separately, and that the result is still a copy, even if not under a separate copyright. Making the copy in which case must then be allowed under the copyright grant of the source text -- thus either fall under fair use exceptions, or be granted explicitly (fat chance!) -- and of course must be accessible without circumvention of any technological access restrictions.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:15PM]

For irony's sake engadget shouldve run the transcript of this interview through text to speech and posted it (for a fee)

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:15PM]

Good one...

[Pies Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:16PM]

It's like suing Apple for adding a visualiser to iPod -- you only pay for the audio, but the device shows you an automatically created music video!

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:19PM]

The thing that's missing here is: Does the Kindle actually make an audio copy when it's reading? The Author Guild guy seems to think that it's a derivative work, but if there is no product (ie: an audio file) then how is that infringing? If it simply takes the text that's on the screen, reads it out loud and creates no file...then it is IDENTICAL to someone reading the book out loud to someone else (kids, friend, dying grandparent).

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:23PM]

I understand the Guild's concerns... and do think they are valid in the view of the 'potential' future trend. However the point to which the digital interpretation of the books begin to match the abilities of the vocal artists is rather a long... very long ways off.

Now there are a couple of sticklers that the Guild will have an impossible time to counter.
1) The device is a computing platform. It provides 'email' abilities and does have other functionality that equates to a computing device.

2) They cannot limit or otherwise inhibit the use of the device for those with disabilities.

3) Mr. Aiken mentioned hearing how the Mac's Text to Speech worked from previous years. He statement about the quality available is ill informed in addition to being poorly thought through. Since the Mac and the iPhone use the same base concepts for the operating system, and voice to text technologies can be transfered in such a way as to provide kindle2 like functionality... the lack of inclusion of the computer in its defense seems flawed.

In the end, it is my opinion that the Guild's position is rather misguided. What they are trying to do is to double tax a single piece of content. this seems to fly in the face of fair use and royalty collections schemes. The Guild would be better served to implement an agreement with digital providers behind closed doors. This would primarily help keep its reputation in tack and avoid the RIAA-like misdeeds.

just my simple minded thought.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:58PM]

This is pretty funny. I am in no way a lawyer, but movies and music are only licensed for private listening/viewing. Here is this guy from the authors guild talking about how the Kindle 2 is a copyright problem and yet he then says "private performances are unregulated by copyright law". I just don't get his argument. I understand he feels like the authors are going to lose money, but not really. An ebook is digital. Cheap to produce. I don't have that much time to read. As most Americans, I refuse to pay $35+ for an audio book. If I can now purchase any book I want, have it read to me by a text to speech program on an integrated device, they are gaining a sale from me that they would not normally have had. I see this as a tool for gaining revenue. The true audio book fans will still get the audio book because they like the professional reading and the true bookworms will still buy paper copies. I only look at this and see $$$$ for the authors. I think it is a shame that people fear technology instead of embrace it. For $10, I can get a paperback copy or a digital copy. Sometimes I can even get the paperback copy for less. If I am getting a digital copy, there is essentially no money to market it or produce it. It has got to cost way more to print, ship, etc a paper copy of a book, magazine, newspaper than it does to create a digital copy. Why can't this be more profiatable for the authors?

[cardfan Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:24PM]

I think the guy was an idiot. Would you check a box to add text to audio for 1.75 extra? I sure wouldn't. What's next? A box for if you plan on changing fonts for 1.75? We wouldn't want to take away from the "books for older people" market. Let's check the box for 1.75 to enable the dictionary. The nerve of amazon taking sales away from the dictionary market.

I wouldn't mind seeing an option to purchase this audio option if it was audio read by a real person and if the Kindle could run both the ebook and audible book together.

[tavisjohn Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:24PM]

OK they talk about using the Kindle's TXT to Speech to pirate books as Audio Books...

Why would anyone go through all that work and time when there are software solutions out there that will convert a TXT file book into an MP3 in a matter of minutes! (VS the hours of recording from a Kindle 2 to a computer)

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:27PM]

tadghostal: Not only blind people benefit from TTS; many people with learning disabilities also need simultaneous audio and visual input for text comprehension.

The National Federation of the Blind has already weighed in on this issue; see http://www.nfb.org/nfb/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=412&SnID=1916786125

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:27PM]

As consumers, we'd love to keep the price of e-books where they're at for the Kindle, but I think the Author's Guild has a point. The interviewer seemed to be stuck on his own thoughts and clearly did not go into this conversation with an open mind.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:10PM]

No, actually. As a consumer, I think the price of Kindle books is already over-inflated. As a matter of fact, that's the only reason I haven't purchased a Kindle.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:28PM]

Firstly, the interviewee is remarkably incoherent for someone in the publishing industry!
Second, it seems to me that consumers should not have to pay double royalties for the same content if they are listening to and reading the same thing. If an author wants double royalty, either write another book or get another reader.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:31PM]

His objection seems to be "since Kindle is horning in on our audio book business, it must be illegal." I truly hope Amazon doesn't buy into this. This is a money grab, pure and simple.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:30PM]

I don't own a Kindle 2, but I listen to alot of Audible books, and from what I've heard of the text to speech feature - ugh, I wouldn't personally use that feature. It might be a nice feature for the visually impaired, but not for me. I read a boat load of books too, but when driving or in the office cramming out graphics projects, I prefer the audible kind because it is convenient and easier to take in. Sounds to me like they want to drain an additional $1.75 off of the consumer, and make Amazon do all the work for an idea that they didn't come up with.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:30PM]

I think these arguments are weak at best, but I'm most concerned about his argument that this could interfere with audio rights elsewhere. Basically that means if it's an extra purchase, it's something that the publisher could refuse to allow for particular books if the audio rights have already been exclusively licensed, and that's just no good for anyone.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:36PM]

What a creep. I got goosebumps just reading his reponses.

They object to the use of a device to do something that would otherwise be done by a human (reading). How is this any different from a graphing calculator or google's machine translation? These devices and services make our lives easier by automating a task that we could have accomplished anyway. -- They don't defraud content owners.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 4:24PM]

Audiobooks are far slower than sitting and reading -- it's not a patience issue.

Books are not reactive or interactive, so their distraction level when driving isn't even on par with whiny kids in the car, much less cellphone usage (which combines interactive, verbal and motor distraction) .

Audiobook readers range from excellent (Scott Brick, Jim Dale) to horrendous. Sort of like authors and actors and commenters on Engadget.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 3:06PM]

What they're asking is totally studpid. They want people to pay more to use a standard feature of the technology?
Amazon should be telling them where to go.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:41PM]

This confused me to no end. I guess I'll just go the library during story time and let them read books to me.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:51PM]

Thanks for the interview; it was interesting.

A couple of my own $.02's worth:

Aiken says "to our ears it's made a generational leap" referring to Kindle TtS compared with what's built into Mac OS. WAY wrong. I've spent hundred of hours listening to the Mac TtS and several hours listening to Kindle's. The best voices on the current Mac OS are notably superior, IMO. Kindle hisses its S's and has more of a nasal drone than the Mac. It's possible that I prefer the Mac because I'm more used to it, but there's no way the Kindle's TtS can be called "generational[ly]" superior.

Also, there's an underlying assumption in these discussions that TtS software might be just a few iterations away from being as good as human-read speach. TtS "has the potential to replace audiobooks," Aiken says. I say don't hold your breath. Computers will be able to read text as well as a human on the day that computers can understand text as well as a human. There's just no other way to get the rhythm and intonation and emphasis right. And on the day computers become that smart, we'll all be under the lash of our robot overlords anyway, so yadda yadda yadda.

Lastly, AFAIK reading other DRM eBooks via a computer's TtS isn't currently a realistic possibility. I don't think there are any eBook readers that allow the text to be accessed as selectable, copiable plain text (except in small snippets in some cases). And if you can't do that, you can't TtS it on a computer either.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 1:51PM]

My brother, who has a learning disability, is one of those "rare" people that will purchase a book and also an audiobook so he can have someone read-aloud to him. Wouldn't the Writer's Guild be disenfranchising him from using the text to speech capability of the Kindle 2?

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:20PM]

Great interview, Nilay. You got some good info out of him and put him on the spot while keeping it a civil debate of differing ideals.

I actually think after reading it that I understand their point a little better. Sounds like they're less interested in being litigious and just want to get their foot in the door of a new space opening up in the market.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:22PM]

There're so many holes in this guys arguments you could drive the Death Star through.

By his twisted logic any device capable of being an e-book reader can do text to speech, that's OK - so long as its not a built in functionality. So if the kindle could play mp3 audiobooks - but no text to speech - and a third party enabled text to speech that'd be sweet too.

Obviously all text to speech are equal, but some are more equal than others (Now did I read that myself or did someone read it to me)

The best comparison I can come up with is if tomorrow someone brought to mass market a device that did a passable job of taking your video and displaying it in 3D. Would that make it OK for studios to charge you for it twice? I mean its still a dvd you're buying.

Amazon should just come out call this assistive technology and these guys will crawl back into the woodwork.

Even when text to speech improves in order to justify charging someone for it would require substantial work to the base text. I mean just for a start - ever read a book and been confused about exactly which character was speaking, or what about books written in dialect.

[Serryl Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:30PM]

I think his argument is poorly phrased but understandable.

Imagine, if you will, that a publisher aquires the rights to a movie script and sells it in the form of a book. A brilliant programer creates a program that will take a scanned page from a book and make a CG animation of what happens on it. In other words, you scan in the script and this program spits out a CG movie.

Now intitally these auto-generated CG movies are terrible in quality and direction; no one is really expected to watch them in place of the actual film. Nonetheless, I suspect the film studios would be concerned.

The script, the movie, and even the audio from the movie all represent different forms of the same IP. If you give someone permission to sell only one form of your work, they can't turn around and create a way of converting it into another form.

The problem with Mr. Aikens argument is that no one would seriously trade a professionally recorded reading of a book for the Kindle2's text-to-speech (TTS) voice; it's unnatural and distracting to listen to. The issue is with the quality getting better. But if the quality isn't good now, why charge us extra now?

To me, the best idea is for Amazon and all e-reader manufacturers to purposefully restrict the quality of their TTS. Refine it a little more (the TTS voice in Vista is nicer) and then leave it. That way it doesn't compete with audiobooks.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 3:38PM]

if in your example, I was able to legitimately pay for the script, and somehow put it through this super cgi machine that could interpret the worlds and create the scenes that normally would be in the movie, and that cgi wasn't saved or stored anywhere, then there is nothing anyone can do about it, because this magic software only performed the script for me. The script is something that I legally paid for and can do anything I want with it, once I own it. It only becomes an issue if the program also created a separate work that I can distribute.

what would be a more fair example, would be a programmer created a program that would read a script aloud to a group of potential actors, or potential studio execs so they could decide whether or not the script was worth investing in without having to take the time to read the work. Perhaps it is able to notice the difference in character names from the script and read female voices for females, male voices for males, and a computerish voice for set instructions.

As long as this program doesn't create a new work to be distributed, it's no different then a bunch of actors sitting around a round table and rehearsing the script before filming... except it won't sound as good.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 3:41PM]

I meant to add this, but submitted the comment to fast:

Think of a band playing a cover song at a venue. Do you have to pay extra to hear that song? Do they have to pay someone to perform those songs? No, because it's only a performance. It's not until the band records that performance, creating a physical work that will be distributed that royalties have to be paid back to the original owners of the content.

[Serryl Posted Feb 27th 2009 4:55PM]

I agree that you have the right to do whatever you want with that script once you've purchased it, assuming you don't try to make money off of it. My point was that Amazon has made an agreement to sell these books and added a feature with the potential to duplicate something they are not supposed to be selling. If they sold an electronic movie script and offered to "generate" the movie on-demand, I think the movie studios would be pissed off.

I recognize that people won't likely be distributing recorded TTS perfomances, but that misses the point. If a TTS performance became so indistinguishable from an audiobook that the average person couldn't tell the difference, then Amazon would essentially selling audiobooks without getting permission to do so or compensating the author for doing so.

I don't think he is worried about people doing this as much as he is worried that Amazon, the retailer, is doing it.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:42PM]

I would have loved to see someone ask him a question about how much extra money the authors will be receiving due to the fact that the Kindle's DRM destroys the "first sale principle" on e-books.

Considering that you cannot re-sell a Kindle book and can only "lend" it to the (at most) handful of other Kindle users that share your account, Kindle sales a massive boon to Author's Guild members. There's no such thing as a used Kindle book store. There's no such thing as a public Kindle library. There's no distribution cost. Hell, there's not (currently) even a typesetting cost, as the Kindle doesn't handle the kind of fancy typesetting that makes some printings art in and of themselves.

The sheer amount of extra cash that publishers and Author's Guild members will get due to these issues dwarfs by probably an order of magnitude any lost "book plus audiobook" sales. The greed involved here is stupefying - I'm starting to think that there's something just completely frakked up about the thought processes of the creative class. Considering that the majority of them are probably cocktail party social democrats makes the hypocrisy even worse. Wear the Che Guevara t-shirt but if you even THINK about interfering with my ability to squeeze one more dime out of the 47th re-pressing of the 12th edition of my greatest hits, I'll sick my pack of lawyers on you.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:46PM]

That was so awesome, you just wouldn't let it go -- rightfully so.

That really made my afternoon, O'reilly would be proud.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:49PM]

I used Microsoft text-to-speech to read the interview. I am so screwed.

[(Unverified) Posted Feb 27th 2009 2:51PM]

Ironically, he's actually opened up another way for me to use the Kindle 2. Now, I can connect it to my car stereo and get through portions of the *business* books during my commute! (I don't think I'd enjoy for fiction books)

Thanks, Paul Aiken!