The answer, clearly, is to enlist organizations for the blind in the counteroffensive.

@CumaeanSibyl:
I agree - I have to wonder how the ADA would play into this scenario.

@CumaeanSibyl: Or failing that, George Costanza.

"The Guild says that's equivalent to an audio book"

Clearly, the Guild is completely unfamiliar with the concept of auto text-to-speech software. Because there's no way in hell such technology could ever be confused with an audio book.

@ophmarketing: I suspect that from a Guild standpoint it's simply the fact that audio availability is included with the print availability without a separate license. They don't really care about the difference in technology and production.

And it's possible that is unprecedented, at least in the majors, since e-text has been pretty rare.

Wow, I suddenly have an urge to not buy a Kindle 2, but only buy audiobooks of titles that allow the text2speach feature.

I have been kicking around all weekend whether or not to purchase a Kindle. Actually, longer, but I was waiting for the K2 to come out. I've been burned early adopting in the past.

I'm torn now.

The text to speech function isn't a deal breaker for me, but it is handy and one of the several so-called "experimental" functions. I'm hesitant to buy a several hundred dollar device that can have some of it's usablity features disabled by someone other than me after I pay for it.

I think this is a great idea, because this will inspire enterprising people to hack the Kindle 2, thus paving the way for all kinds of other cool stuff. Just think of all the cool modding that never would have occurred if the manufacturers hadn't been so over-controlling and restrictive all these years. Case-in-point: the iPhone and Xbox.

@CumaeanSibyl: The American Dental Association will have no stake in this claim.

However, speaking about the blind...they can buy the audio book. This isn't like taking brail away from the blind. The blind still have an option.

In any case, I think the simple answer is to boycott the books that disallow text-to-speech and make it known with ratings on amazon.

The authors guild can keep their "power" to deny text to speech on a particular work, but won't be using it when they see the negative impact.

@arikmoon: Yes, so the disabled have to buy a completely DIFFERENT (and probably more expensive) version of the book simply because they can't see. I don't see how that's fair.

This is terrible. People need to stop being so greedy. Certainly, authors should get paid for their books, but trying to limit usage like this is terribly draconian. This author's guild entity needs to be stood up to.

@floraposte: I think they're more concerned about getting the appropriate amount of $$$ instead of anything to do with audio vs e-text.

@floraposte: Wait, Wait, isn't this same functionality available on any PC in the world that has windows? Can't I just have my computer "Bob" read me the book too? Come on . .

Ah good, another reason for me not to buy a Kindle. Next up: the author's guild implants tiny liquid bombs in all books that cause the ink to run if you own the book longer than 2 years, to prevent used sales at yardsales.

Really...when are these people (PC game publishers, RIAA, MPAA, WG) going to get a clue? Be happy SOMEONE is buying your shit. Why are you penalizing people that are giving you money? Do you think someone is going to buy your book AND the audio tape? No, they buy the kindle version, and you should be happy with your cut. Why put malware in PC games to punish non-pirates? Be happy SOMEONE is paying you. Why cry that your music isn't getting enough money from Guitar Hero? Be happy you get ANYTHING. Geeze, these guys are going to lock down their material so hard, no one will want to fool with it.

@arikmoon:

There isn't always an audio book feature though.

This is ridiculous. Text to speech is nothing like an audio book. The reason publishers should be allowed to charge for an audio book is because the creation of such a recording costs the publishers. They have to pay the author, or an actor to read the book, the recording engineers to record the reader, and then they have to manufacture the CDs, MP3 or whatever form the final product takes. I'm sure there are tons of other expenses I'm missing that make it reasonable for a publisher to charge fo a seperate audibook.

The publisher incurs NONE of these expenses when a buyer with a Kindle activates the text to speech function of their device on content they have paid for.

Unless the publisher had intended to have Stephen Hawking read the book there are no similarities here at all.

Sounds like these people really hate people using their products.

What a great way to stay in business. I'm going to sit back and watch how long it lasts.

I like to knit while listening to audiobooks. But a lot of the books I want to listen to aren't available at Audible.com. I have suspended my subscription there because the last five or so books that I was looking for just weren't available in audio.

I was considering the purchase of a Kindle, since those books I was wanting to listen to were available in the Kindle format, and I had heard about the text to speech feature.

I'm glad I caught this story on Consumerist. I'm holding my order on the Kindle.

Amazon customer staff were very courteous about handling my return yesterday. I quote the return authorization:

Kindle 2: Amazon's New Wireless Reading Device (Latest Generation), quantity 1
Reason: No longer needed/wanted
Return Details: ***Kindle*** returning in protest of text to speech change. cst does not believe amazon should have "caved in" to the authors guild and giving them the choice on text to speech capabilities.
Action Requested: Refund

I believe that the position held by Kindle owners opposed to the Authors' Guild was covered in the authorization.

Thank you for being ethical about the return, Amazon.

@Oranges w/ Cheese: Well the problem is a blind person cannot even use the kindle. It's a smooth surface. There is no way for them to know what is on the screen. Of course there is no technical reason why they can't drop a microphone on it and make a voice interface for the device for the blind. But now that text-to-speech is out, there would be no point in developing such an interface.

This incident again begs the question, why don't you just buy a book?

The same thing that happened with music will happen here. Download restrictions, usage rights, DRM, disabling features, non-transferable/sellable, ridiculous costs.

Remember ATM's? First they were touted as a convenience, then used as a moneymaker.
Or East Coast people, remember EZ Pass? First you got a discount, then you paid the regular cash price, now you have to pay a monthly fee.

People, wake up and realize that companies are not in business to save you money, only to make believe they are saving you money. Once you realize that and start questioning all their actions then you stand a fighting chance.

*cough*
Time for a one star review.
*cough*

There goes Stephen Hawkins new part-time job. I guess it is back to rapping for him.

@CMU_Bueller:

Or how about you don't review things you've not used?

I think the AG is a bunch of idiots, and Amazon is a complete pushover. And while I believe SOME people saying they aren't going to buy or are sending theirs back because they only wanted it for the feature, I don't believe most of them. Give me a break, while we all want extra features, how often do you think you'd actually use it? Everyone thought text-to-speech was cool idea on computers but I know very few who actually use it. It will be the same with the Kindle. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for the feature that was advertised, but be realistic at least with yourself about whether you would have really used the feature.

@Oranges w/ Cheese: The ADA isn't the "make everything fair" law, though, and even if it were, the Kindle isn't a solution because it's not accessible and it doesn't apply to all books--then there's also the small matter of the expense.

The ADA is mostly about nondiscrimination in employment and in access to places and services, not merchandise. There's no Braille or playable sound file identifying most packaging, after all; then there's the fact that much of the web itself isn't very accessible and doesn't work with the basic screen readers. Fair? No. Legal? Different question.

"If you don't own a Kindle 2, the problem obviously won't immediately effect you"

Affect, not effect.

/pedant

@Oranges w/ Cheese: Yeah, you'd think that would be illegal. It'd be like any other business putting in a handicapped ramp, then charging people to use it. And don't Macs and PCs already have the capacity to read text out loud for disabled people? How is this any different? And I imagine Braille editions of books probably cost a bit extra as well.

And if it's a violation of copyright for a machine to read a book out loud, is it also a violation for a person to read it? If not, is there a threshold? How many people are you allowed to read out loud to? Will there be pending litigation against kindergarten teachers across the country? How loud are you allowed to read aloud? Can you be sued if to read too loud and some passersby overhear you? Actually, you probably shouldn't read out loud in a public place, because that's obnoxious. But still.

It would seem to me Amazon's caving had less to do with the expense of a lawsuit and more to do with how much it would endanger their relatively young product if a bunch of big publishers decided not to make their books availiable for purchase on the Kindle.

"the right to control whether I can read my book to my kid, or my Kindle can read a book to me."

Two completely different things; one is a Fair Use and the other is a Commercial Use.

@noone1569: But you've got to have the e-text first for that. Most big trade publishers aren't going to sell it to you. Public domain text, no problem, but the Authors Guild isn't representing those authors.
@Oranges w/ Cheese: Yes, of course it's about money. Does that mean it's inherently bad, though? Or that its setting of a precedent isn't relevant? Authors have traditionally sold audio rights separately, and there haven't been many e-text versions to test the exemption for text-to-speech. This is a competing product that isn't separately licensed. I haven't come to a firm conclusion on this, but I don't think the Authors' Guild is crazy here for being concerned.

@trellis23: Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

@U-235:

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. This is exactly why they rolled over like the French in 1942.

@trellis23: I can't speak for everyone, but personally, it was the single biggest selling point. YES, I realize the voice generator sounds awful, but I wanted badly to try it anyway. I'm constantly being dragged off to one place or another when I'd rather be reading. I've read and audiobooked in tandem, but this option is expensive* and it's tedious to find my place every time I switch formats.

The switching is what made the Kindle 2 stand out. If the publishers wanted to offer enhanced e-books that had page-indexed audio files for half-again more than the original ebook, then it might be fair to switch off TTS for publications available in that specific format. TTS could not be confused with the for-profit product, but it would be competing with it. Fine. But considering that Audible files are generally tabbed by chapter or hour, I don't see a TTS-equivalent product on the horizon.

* Admittedly, the "expensive" is my own fault because of my mild fetish for signed firsts. I fully realize *could* combine the library and Audible, or better, the library and the library, and pay no more than $15 per book. But we're talking about purchased digital editions here, so I think it's reasonable to stipulate that I generally won't pay for two standalone editions of the same book.

That is SUCH BS, amazon should have stood up to them and flipped them off. Of course, amazon's primary biz is paper books, but how much of the publishers revenue comes from amazon? a fair bit i'm willing to bet, but enough to threaten them with? Dunno, either way, this still sucks.

@fatcop: Amazon also disabled a feature from the Kindle 1 that let you add your own images as screensavers. It's not a *huge* deal--it doesn't affect the books you read, obviously--but it does mean they locked down the device to a greater degree than before. And to my knowledge there was no way to abuse the feature to evade copyright laws or anything. It just let you temporarily replace the built-in screensavers with your own family pics if you wanted.

The core technology is still awesome, but with that missing, the text to speech control being handed off to publishers, and the price fluctuation we've started to see for titles, it's more of a gamble than ever. You really have no way of knowing what else Amazon may take away in the coming months.

@JustThatGuy3: Thx. That's my Achilles' heal.

(And I just did that to make you crazy. I know it's "heel.")

@arikmoon:
Not true. Do you really believe that there is an audiobook version of every book in print? Often times the blind have to specially request items to be recorded for the via Lighthouse for the Blind, or other charitable organizations...of course that is also a violation of copyright...I wonder if the Author's guild are going to go after them, or would that just be too tacky?

This is also an insult to the people who create audiobooks, as Text-to-speech software in no way resemble the experience of having a living breathing person read to you.

@Alessar: Facebook changed the terms on material provided to them in order to make more money from it. Amazon changed the terms on material provided to them in order to make more money from it.

Why does the second mean "people need to be so greedy" while the first means that Facebook got greedy? Seems to me that the providers of material in both cases have a right to consent to any changes to use of their material, and that the main difference here is that web posters are likelier to provide material to Facebook than a publisher.

@floraposte: "to stop being so greedy," obviously. Sorry.

@dadelus: That's not the basis for additional rights charges, though (which is probably good for authors, as movie rights wouldn't cost anything then).

Send emails to them. I just did.

The Authors Guild
31 East 32nd Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Phone: (212) 563-5904
Fax: (212) 564-5363

E-mail: staff@authorsguild.org

@JosephFinn: Yup. That's why reading a book to a class is different than performing a story from it for a paid event.

I still see no reason to blow almost $400 on one of these things. $400 can buy a lot of books or audio books.

@floraposte:

That may be, but using the logic they are using here should they get a royalty fee every time a parent reads a story to their children rather than having the children read it themselves?

@sumgai: Oui oui

@sumgai: Serious emails only. No cock pics. Well maybe just a few.

I hope someone from the ADA has the nerve to start a lawsuit. This would be an awesome feature for anyone that is visually impaired.

Oh, come ON! A guild of authors is nothing like the greedy assholes from the RIAA. Authors are a special breed and many take great and loving care in their audiobooks. I agree with them, this shouldn't have been a Kindle function.