# Possible legal issue with text to speech



## Cherie (Feb 3, 2009)

A writer friend (non-Kindler) just passed this along:

From a publishing industry newsletter, a couple of things on the new Kindle.

"Some in the publishing community are raising objections to the new device's deployment of text-to-speech software that lets users have books read aloud by Kindle. Agents are raising questions and Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken tells the WSJ "they don't have the right to read a book out loud. That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law." Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener says "these are not audiobooks. Text to speech is simply software that runs on devices and reads content." To that argument, an agent responds to us: "TTS is a tool. So is a knife. If I use it to cut vegetables, I'm using it for its intended and lawful purpose. If I use it to stab someone, I'm committing a crime. The fact that they are using a technology to create an audiobook rather than recording one has nothing to do with the issue. They are using a tool that has lawful purposes to violate copyright." Asked about next steps, Aiken says "we're studying it right now."

"One other feature of the new Kindle not mentioned earlier is that the battery--prone to exposure when the back door would fly off in the first model--is now sealed inside the device. An Amazon representative told us that they heard from very few customers who had need or interest in replacing the battery on the device. (And the loose door was a commonly-heard complaint.)"


My comments on these points: the battery part doesn't make sense. Maybe the reporter misunderstood the Amazon rep. With demand for K1 batteries so high they've been on backorder for months, clearly it's not true that "they heard from very few customers who had need or interest in replacing the battery."

The other issue, though--that the Text-to-Speech feature might infringe audio book rights--sounds like a potential minefield for Amazon. Presumably their legal staff gave them the go-ahead. Or did anyone think to ask them about it?


----------



## mwb (Dec 5, 2008)

> "they don't have the right to read a book out loud. That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law."


I look forward with great amusement to their impending RIAA style lawsuits against parents reading aloud to their children all of whom failed to secure those rights to read a book aloud.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

So much in this world is just ridiculous.


----------



## Dangerosa (Dec 5, 2008)

Cherie said:


> "TTS is a tool."


It's not the only tool in that article.


----------



## Mikuto (Oct 30, 2008)

Is the genius who wrote that article going to prosecute ALL text to speech programs? Because the one on the Kindle 2 certainly isn't the first.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

Dangerosa said:


> It's not the only tool in that article.


LOL, good one!


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Mikuto said:


> Is the genius who wrote that article going to prosecute ALL text to speech programs? Because the one on the Kindle 2 certainly isn't the first.


Probably just the ones with multi-millions. ie:Amazon


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

What a bunch of twits. Maybe if audio books were not so damn expensive this wouldn't be a problem. I seriously doubt that Amazon would put something on the K2 that was illegal. I have a sneaking suspicion that their lawyers got all of their ducks in order before allowing text to speech to be added to K2.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Did he really compare text-to-speech to murder?


----------



## Mikuto (Oct 30, 2008)

A lot of blind people use text to speech for computers. Googling text to speech brings up 33,000,000 sites. Plenty of them offering programs.

This is a non-issue. There is no legality issue here.



Cherie said:


> Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken tells the WSJ "they don't have the right to read a book out loud. That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law."


If that was true, every single person who ever read a book to their child, or read a piece aloud to a friend, or read something aloud in school is BREAKING COPYRIGHT LAW. The level of ridiculous here can't even be measured.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Microsoft has been offering text to speech in their ebook reader for years.


----------



## ak rain (Nov 15, 2008)

Mikuto said:


> If that was true, every single person who ever read a book to their child, or read a piece aloud to a friend, or read something aloud in school is BREAKING COPYRIGHT LAW. The level of ridiculous here can't even be measured.


this was my thought too. 
also the sample text to speach sample I heard while OK is not the same as Brian Jacques reading Eulalia - a wonderfull performance and something to pay for.

Sylvia


----------



## Kind (Jan 28, 2009)

kim said:


> So much in this world is just ridiculous.


 The "lawsuit industry" is a big business.


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

> I look forward with great amusement to their impending RIAA style lawsuits against parents reading aloud to their children all of whom failed to secure those rights to read a book aloud.


hahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahaha


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

Dangerosa said:


> It's not the only tool in that article.


ROFL

And, on a serious note, I seriously doubt that this will stick, since amazon/Kindle is not keeping a recording of the TTS output, much less selling it as such.


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

Agreed that the whole argument is stupid.

I did notice yesterday, though, that TTS is listed as "experimental", which means Amazon could take it away at any time for any reason, just like they did with NowNow....


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

I can only imagine the lawsuit against the parents..
"So how many chapters of Harry Potter did you read to your 4 children?"

Its as stupid as disney suing daycares because they dare have Winnie The Pooh murals..


----------



## Mikuto (Oct 30, 2008)

President Obama has read Harry Potter. One could infer that he's read it to his daughters. 

Are they going to try and sue HIM?


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Steph H said:


> Agreed that the whole argument is stupid.
> 
> I did notice yesterday, though, that TTS is listed as "experimental", which means Amazon could take it away at any time for any reason, just like they did with NowNow....


Only if people insist on having their Kindle read stupid books to them...

L


----------



## VMars (Feb 8, 2009)

This is ridiculous. If they get sued, then blind people should sue THEM (the RIAA) for denying them the ease of having thousand of books read out loud to them.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2009)

Leslie said:


> Only if people insist on having their Kindle read *stupid* books to them...
> 
> L


I think you put the adjective in the wrong place.


----------



## SusanCassidy (Nov 9, 2008)

chobitz said:


> Its as stupid as disney suing daycares because they dare have Winnie The Pooh murals..


Actually, that IS different, because Disney owns its version of Winnie the Pooh, just like it owns Mickey Mouse, and they have had piracy issues with rip-off products that aren't licensed to use Disney characters. I believe even the original Winnie-the-Pooh illustrations (which, personally, I greatly prefer) are copyrighted. If they don't protect their licensing, it will be just like Bayer lost the use of the word "aspirin", because they let people use it without trademarking.

I know it sounds crazy, but when lawyers get involved on technicalities, craziness ensues (no pun intended).


----------



## durphy (Nov 5, 2008)

Jonathan Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School, said he doesn't see how the feature violates copyright law if no recorded copy of the book is created. Book publishers often license audio books separately than the text versions.

"The only right really that might be implicated is the so-called public performance," Zittrain said. "But what I want the thing to do is to read to me n the car. I don't see a copy being made so I don't see how this can be Amazon's problem."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10161104-93.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

SusanCassidy said:


> Actually, that IS different, because Disney owns its version of Winnie the Pooh, just like it owns Mickey Mouse, and they have had piracy issues with rip-off products that aren't licensed to use Disney characters. I believe even the original Winnie-the-Pooh illustrations (which, personally, I greatly prefer) are copyrighted. If they don't protect their licensing, it will be just like Bayer lost the use of the word "aspirin", because they let people use it without trademarking.
> 
> I know it sounds crazy, but when lawyers get involved on technicalities, craziness ensues (no pun intended).


Actually there IS a loophole with trademark names like Aspirin that if its used communally as a generic name for the pain pill over x amount of years they can't sue. Its more a society chosen thing. Thats why people use Kleenex for tissue for example.

I use to know the blow by blow laws but its been a long time since I have been in an advertising/marketing class.

I'm sorry but I still think its dumb when Disney sues a mom and pop daycare cause their 16 year old son drew a few Disney characters on their wall.


----------



## SusanCassidy (Nov 9, 2008)

That's what I mean.  "Aspirin" started out as a brand name, and they lost their trademark because they let people use the name.  You could be sued for using "kleenex" instead of tissue, since it is trademarked.


----------



## nelamvr6 (Jan 29, 2009)

Just one more reason to hate lawyers! Ugh!


----------



## nelamvr6 (Jan 29, 2009)

So if I get my aunt Flo to read my favorite book to me is she also in trouble for "creating an audio book"?


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

nelamvr6 said:


> So if I get my aunt Flo to read my favorite book to me is she also in trouble for "creating an audio book"?


Apparently, only if someone tapes her doing so. Damn it, there go all those cute video tapes of parents reading to their kids. Stupid rules...


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

nelamvr6 said:


> So if I get my aunt Flo to read my favorite book to me is she also in trouble for "creating an audio book"?


I think I'll call up my ex-husband and ask him to read me a book, and then turn him into the lawyers... sorry, I digress.

I digress very very much


----------



## standaman (Feb 11, 2009)

Cherie said:


> The other issue, though--that the Text-to-Speech feature might infringe audio book rights--sounds like a potential minefield for Amazon. Presumably their legal staff gave them the go-ahead. Or did anyone think to ask them about it?


That is just ridiculous IMO. That's like saying closed captions would be a copyright infringement. I see this as not only a great tool for absorbing information on the go, but also a great tool for vision impaired people who might like to get something out of a kindle.

STT has existed on computers for years, and as far as I'm aware no one has been sued. (But rest assured I'm no lawyer)


----------



## KellyL250 (Jan 13, 2009)

Christopher Null - Posted Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:17PM EST is reporting on his blog on Yahoo! Tech:

"It was hardly the most interesting or earth-shaking part of Jeff Bezos's introduction of the Kindle 2 on Monday, but one small, experimental feature in the device is already causing a minor uproar. Specifically: The Kindle 2's text-to-speech function, which will use a computerized voice to read aloud anything displayed on the device's screen. The problem? The Authors Guild says that that's against the law.

The challenge revolves around audiobooks, which are treated separately from printed material from a copyright standpoint. A retailer can't record a copy of a book on a CD and sell it or bundle it along with a novel without paying a separate fee, just as buying a copy of an audiobook doesn't entitle you to a free copy of the printed version.

Amazon -- and many legal observers -- vehemently question this stance, noting that an automated text-to-speech system isn't the same as a pre-recorded audio book. Some have even compared computerized speech systems like these to reading a children's storybook aloud at bedtime. Since the Kindle doesn't store a copy of the book on the device in an audio format, but rather converts from text on the fly, it seems likely that Amazon is on the right side of the law on this one.

Still, we're in a legal gray area that hasn't really been tested in court, and if our legal history has taught us anything, it's that judges can sway either way on these issues. If the Kindle 2's audio quality is good enough, it could eat substantially into the sales of audiobooks, and that alone tends to be a persuasive argument in the courtroom. 

The Authors Guild doesn't seem ready to go to court yet, however. In a memo the organization sent to its membership this morning it said publishers and authors should "consider asking Amazon to disable the audio function on e-books it licenses." Get ready for a long road ahead on this one."


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

Author Neil Gaimain's blog post today

-----------------------------------
Just found myself having a long argument/discussion with my agent over the Amazon Kindle text-to-speech capability. I'm going to summarise it here.

Her point of view: The Kindle reading you the book-you-just-bought infringes the copyright (or at least, the rights) to the audiobook. We've sold audiobook rights and print book rights as separate things. We must stop this.

My point of view: When you buy a book, you're also buying the right to read it aloud, have it read to you by anyone, read it to your children on long car trips, record yourself reading it and send that to your girlfriend etc. This is the same kind of thing, only without the ability to do the voices properly, and no-one's going to confuse it with an audiobook. And that any authors' societies or publishers who are thinking of spending money on fighting a fundamentally pointless legal case would be much better off taking that money and advertising and promoting what audio books are and what's good about them with it.

There.

I love his last point.


----------



## Mikuto (Oct 30, 2008)

I knew there was a reason I liked Neil Gaiman, besides the creative brilliance, that is.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

ahh I might have to pull out my Sandman Graphic Novels for another read. 

But I have 40 books on my Kindle I have not read.

Why is it work interfere's with all the good things in life?


----------



## artsandhistoryfan (Feb 7, 2009)

Just wanted to say that this is such a great forum.

!


----------



## MineKinder (Jan 5, 2009)

Noooooooo!
Please tell me Amazon is not going to delay shipping K2, because of the pending legal issue with voice?
I can't wait ANY longer!


----------



## nelamvr6 (Jan 29, 2009)

MineKinder said:


> Noooooooo!
> Please tell me Amazon is not going to delay shipping K2, because of the pending legal issue with voice?
> I can't wait ANY longer!


Please let's not start THAT rumor!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Yes, let's not go there.  Also, since it's a software feature, fairly easily disabled, as was NowNow.  Just push a new software version to everyone as they start up the Kindle.  Don't see any need to delay anything, not that they are going to.

Betsy


----------



## BambiB (Dec 22, 2008)

Dangerosa said:


> It's not the only tool in that article.


Ha ha!! So funny!


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

I saw this yesterday (this copy from USA Today - don't remember who yahoo had linked...)



> NEW YORK (AP) - The guild that represents authors is urging writers to be wary of a text-to-speech feature on Amazon.com Inc.'s updated Kindle electronic reading device.
> In a memo sent to members Thursday, the guild says the Kindle 2's "Read to Me" feature "presents a significant challenge to the publishing industry."
> 
> The Kindle can read text in a somewhat stilted electronic voice. But the Authors Guild says the quality figures to "improve rapidly." And the guild worries that could undermine the market for audio books.
> ...


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I swear, lawyers take a course in law school called "Convoluted Thinking." How else could they come up with this sort of nonsense?

I am going to read Dear Abby out loud, right now! And when I finish that, I am going to read Heloise out loud and maybe even the funnies! Someone, quick, come haul me away for copyright violation!

L


----------



## Anne (Oct 29, 2008)

I would think that Amazon would have checked into the legal issues before they put speech to text on the Kindle.I cannot see this hurting the sale of auto-books not everyone is going to buy a kindle. There are lots of people that will still buy audio-books.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Hmmm.  Puzzled.  If I read KindleBoard posts out loud to my DH (some are Very Funny) are you guys gonna sue me?



Ann


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

The Microsoft Reader has had text to speech for a few years, but it will not always work:



> *From the Reader FAQ Page*
> 
> Will all eBooks work with the TTS feature?
> No. While the majority of titles presently available in Microsoft Reader format will work with the TTS feature, most of the "premium content" (copy-protected) titles have been published in a format that does not allow for Text-to-Speech.


Amazon may be forced to go the same route. TTS for public domain and personal documents, but not for copy protected books.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

This kind of crazy stuff would never happen in *Hibbing*.

Sorry... I just haven't seen Hibbing appear in a thread lately.

And I wonder if *HUGH *reads books out loud


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Jesslyn said:


> Author Neil Gaiman's blog post today
> 
> -----------------------------------
> Just found myself having a long argument/discussion with my agent over the Amazon Kindle text-to-speech capability. I'm going to summarise it here.
> ...


Its a HUGE deal that Gaiman is backing Amazon because of past legal issues Gaiman has had. He had a 10 year legal battle with another comic creator Todd McFarland over copyrights and royalties.

When McFarland created his hit series Spawn he needed help with the secondary cast of characters. Gaiman created ALL the characters except Spawn and never got a cent of royalties. After 10 years Gaiman won and McFarland had to repay Gaiman for every movie, comic, cartoon, game and merchandise that used Gaiman's characters. If I remember right Gaiman got something like 40 million dollar judgment.

So Gaiman doesn't treat copyrights or royalties lightly!


----------



## thejackylking #884 (Dec 3, 2008)

If the authors guild insists on sueing Amazon the Amazon should countersue based on the American w/ Disabilities act.  Since in reality this will affect them more than anyone else.  The authors Guild will be impinging on the rights of the visually impaired by not allowing Amazon to keep this feature.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Unfortunately, stupidity has never really kept lawsuits from happening or from winning and causing companies millions in legal fees.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm fairly certain that Amazon checked all that out before offering the option and is prepared to defend itself as needed;  in short: this is but a tempest in a teapot.

Ann


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Ann Von Hagel said:


> I'm fairly certain that Amazon checked all that out before offering the option and is prepared to defend itself as needed; in short: this is but a tempest in a teapot.
> 
> Ann


I agree with you, but I'll bet McDonald's thoought the same thing about the hot coffee suit.


----------



## Chris (Dec 6, 2008)

Publishers better learn who the customer is REALLY, REALLY, soon.  The music industry got their head handed to them over the last few years for pulling stunts like this.  They try to defend what they have instead of understanding the evolution of their customer base.

I predict in the future that with technology like internet, iTunes, Kindle...  the publishers will get squeezed out of existence as the authors and customers become more connected.

The publishers better wakeup and recognize the changes in the industry or Book Publishers, Music Publishers, Newspapers, etc. will be quaint, distant memories to our children.

I am sure the buggy whip manufacturers figured CARS were just a fad.....

Chris


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

kim said:


> This kind of crazy stuff would never happen in *Hibbing*.
> 
> Sorry... I just haven't seen Hibbing appear in a thread lately.
> 
> And I wonder if *HUGH *reads books out loud


You're darn tootin' it would never happen in Hibbing. Minnesota people are too down to earth and practical. (Comes of dealing with all that snow--no time for frivolous pursuits unless it's ice fishing.) Thanks for mentioning that, Kim!

And I'm sure Hugh reads aloud, he's got kids!

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2009)

> the hot coffee suit.


I need one of those in a 48 long with cream and sugar. 
'


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Vampyre said:



> I need one of those in a 48 long with cream and sugar.
> '


I think you're looking for the Coffee and Tea thread


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2009)

Are there Tea Suits?  I like tea and I don't like coffee at all.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

Vampyre said:


> Are there Tea Suits? I like tea and I don't like coffee at all.


mmm tea. I am having a pot of Bossa Nova right now. Oolong with vanilla. So yummy.

I think the Authors Guild is freaking out because the Kindle is more affordable then smiliar technologies and will be used by people who are able bodied. I think they ignored the text to speech devices that exist and are used for people with disabilities that make reading difficult or impossible because it would have been bad form to sue something manufactured for the blind or dyslexic.

The Kindle is mass produced and can be used by everyone. Now text to speech becomes a bigger issue because it is not a targeted audience of disabled individuals. I can see were that would be scary to the Authors Guild.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2009)

With the number of people in the US that actually read for leasure so low, you'd thing the greedy fools would be grateful for anything that got more books sold.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

like anyone is going to buy the audiobook and the book. Do they really think they are losing sales?


----------

