Amazon has modified its new Kindle 2, the subject of a somewhat over-heated copyright dispute that I commented on earlier, so that its new "text-to-speech" functionality will be enabled/disabled at the option of the publisher -- i.e., that each publisher will get to decide for itself, when licensing books for Kindle sale, whether to allow it to be "spoken" through the S-2-T processor or not. Not good news for the consumer, it seems to me -- although if Amazon makes it clear, when you're purchasing Kindle books, whether the S-2-T functionality works or not on that particular title, it's probably a wash for most of us [though not for the blind or the partially blind -- they lose, in this deal]
[thanks to Tom Hynes for the pointer]
Related Posts (on one page):
- Google Books Controversy Heating Up:
- Amazon Caves on Kindle:
- The Death of Copyright, Item #241
- Kindle 2 Speech:
"WARNING: The publisher of this material has chosen to force Amazon to disable the Kindle's text-to-speech function. If you purchase this content, your Kindle will not be able to read it out loud to you."
Heck, I'd add a last little mandatory checkbox, where the purchaser has to acknowledge that he is aware of the limitation being imposed by the publisher.
Try it. (I concede comfort is purely personal, and there's no definitive answer.) I have read about sixty books over 18 months on the Sony Reader, and immediately found it much more comfortable than a normal book. First, there is no need to use your hand to keep pages from closing. Sitting and prone positions are easier than with a book. That probably doesn't sound like a big deal until you experience it. For me it was.
Second, it carries all the books I am currently reading.
Third, when I want a book, I just order it online and have it immediately; no trip to the bookstore or Amazon order. The Sony needa a computer and uses the iTunes ordering model. The Kindle doesn't need a computer.
However, I do not use it for anything other than narrative. I don't find it useful for anything with quantitative information since I frequently flip back to previous pages of data and graphs when reading that material.
In terms of backlighting, it's a function of battery weight and life. Digital ink screens can last much longer between charges than a backlit screen. The screen requires the same lighting as a regular book, and can easily be read in direct sunlight with no glare.
The only option I would suggest to manufacturers is a small, handheld BlueTooth "clicker" that would turn pages so I don't even have to touch the unit.
If some enterprising hacker figures out a way to bypass the publisher's limitation on the reader, would bypassing it violate DMCA?
These works are copyrightable, and the technology controls the access. That the access is for a purpose of exercising a right not reserved to the copyright owner is irrelevant (otherwise CCS-craking tools would be legal).
That said, the DMCA allows the Librarian of Congress to create exemptions (renewable every three years), and one such is for accessibility to the disabled. You can find the current rules (to expire October 27, 2009) here. In particular there is an exemption for:
We should celebrate it as another example of technology expanding the free market.
My understanding about the kindle however is that even with TTS it is not a particularly accessible device. I may be wrong about that, but such is my understanding.
I would like to see Gerrirt is right but the lawsuit against a mothher of three by the music companies means he wont.
They even brought a lawsuit against scout girls forbiddeen them to sing pop song without paying fees
When they start ranting about suing Amazon with trumped up strained causes of action for the full disclosure, we'll know who has won.
The publisher's have a better one. The medium they are providing is aimed at a reading audience or a listening audience.
I think the publishers would have a better place to argue it, but even then, it is not beneficial. The PR behind demanding special fees for a special version aimed at the disabled audience ought to be enough to put this to rest.
Clearly, having one device capable of serving two audiences is hardly a deprivation of profit for either author or publisher. It simplifies things.
The audience bought the device and should be able to use it as it was designed to be used, to know the content. Whether it goes in through the eyes or the ears is not a proper legal premise to my way of thinking.
All these copyright issues related to medium are destined to lose in long-run. The more they fight for every nickle they were able to pocket due to the restrictions inherent in the non-technical medium, the more they generate resentment and piracy in the audience that used to willingly part with that nickle.
Frankly, they deserve to lose it.
A back light makes no sense for this kind of technology. I have a Kindle 2 and I find the contrast between the text and the background wanting. Unless you read in a strong light it does not find as comfortable as real paper. I'm going to give it chance, but at this point I'm inclined to return it.
I'd say Amazon has scored a nice PR coup. People who wouldn't even have bothered about the text to speech feature will now be pissed at the Author's Guild and writing them nasty letters, posting on their blogs, whatever, because one thing people hate is being told they can't do something -- even if, willy nilly, they actually had no plans to do it.
So Amazon successfully, at zero cost to themselves, removes themselves from the middle of a sticky situation and directs their huge numbers of customers at an opponent that has given them trouble. The likely result (consumers motivated to protest the AG, the AG backing down) is to get Amazon a deal with the authors that is much better than what they could get now.
Very smart people. Buy Amazon stock, folks.
I mean surely some people might share one with a sighted friend but is the kindle really cheaper than the all audio alternatives?
I am a blind person who has been seeking a method to access printed material, I honestly don't like human narration. Human speech is too slow, with TTS software the reading speed can be adjusted to the user's preference.
Last year I tried a scanner with optical character recognition but that turned out to require a great deal of editting after the material was scanned. It got close, but the mistakes were very jarring. A sighted user would likely be able to skip over those blemishes fairly easy, but the TTS speaks everything so mistakes stand out much more.
TTS is actually also very good for self-editing for that same reason, your ears don't slip over the mistakes nearly as easily as eyes.
You might think that but so far the publishers have been mighty united against TTS features in other e-book products. They seem very set on trying to sell audio books, even to people like myself who won't buy them and so don't buy any books. My book purchases dropped from over $4k/year to zero after I went blind.
Although I will also admit that many of the subjects I purchased books for (computer programming as an example) do not translate well to speech. Tables and figures do not render well.
The copyright argument was always questionable. But this is an interesting bit of lateral thinking, though I can't speak to the actual merits.
How so? Can a disabled person sue Apple for not making the iPhone more friendly to disabled persons? What about a TV remote with no Braille on the buttons? What about homebuilders who don't offer handicapped facilities in every house they build? Does public access for the disabled extend to every product on the market today?
Maybe one of the clip-on booklight thingies would work?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.