The Engadget Interview: Paul Aiken, Executive Director of the Authors Guild
By Nilay Patel 
posted February 27th 2009 12:30PM
posted February 27th 2009 12:30PM
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.
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!
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
Isnt the Kindle reading to me a private performances?
Totally agreed. What if somebody invent a robot that can also read to you? What do they do?
There are no more switchboard operators- There will be no more audiobooks.
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)
This interview is going in circles.
Agree. I've read it twice, and I still don't understand what exactly his argument is.
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!!!
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.
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
Thanks for posting this, I really enjoyed this interview.
$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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
God damned lawyers. Throw 'em all off a cliff, and they'll sue you on the way down.
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.
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.
Worse yet - sue the teachers and volunteers who read books aloud to children at school, the library, or the bookstore.
Ahh, but what if the robot is a parent, and that parent reads the words the Kindle's screen aloud to their children?
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?!?
Robots can have children!?
No....your kid has to sit there and put quarters into the robot till it finishes the story...
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.