According To Author's Guild, You Cannot Read Books Out Loud

from the player-pianos-anyone? dept

Tue, Feb 10th 2009 10:35am — Mike Masnick

As you may know, when player pianos were first introduced, there was a massive fear among musicians that it would be the death of the live music industry. With a player piano, why would anyone ever need to go see a live performance again? In fact, the roots of our rather draconian modern copyright law come, in part, from this dispute. You can see it time and time again, as each new technology comes along, someone freaks out, demands an extra layer of gov't granted rights (and often a compulsory license) and only later discovers that these "threats" were really opportunities all along.

The latest such example comes from an absolutely extraordinary statement from Paul Aitken, the executive director of the Authors Guild, upon hearing that the new Amazon Kindle has an experimental text-to-speech factor. Rather than think about how this feature might expand readership, he immediately insisted that it's illegal to use it:

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

By that reasoning pretty much any use of text-to-speech software is illegal, which would make for a fascinating legal case. And, actually, if you take that reasoning further, any reading outloud from a book that is not yours is also a violation of copyright law, according to Aitken. Read to your kids at night? Watch out for the Authors Guild police banging down your door. I would think that in purchasing a book, some of the associated rights that come along with it are the right to either read it aloud or have someone else read it aloud to you, but perhaps we'll soon be hearing about a special new "text-to-speech" right with a special compulsory license that will add a nice little extra charge to every book you buy. In the meantime, who put the Luddites in charge of the Authors Guild?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: authors guild, books, copyright, kindle, paul aitken, text-to-speech

48 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish, 10 Feb 2009 @ 10:51am

"Read to your kids at night? Watch out for the Authors Guild police banging down your door."

Shhhh! Don't give them any ideas!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JB, 10 Feb 2009 @ 11:03am

Day care centers already have to buy a license in order to show videos to the children, under the premise that it's a "public performance".

If this guy is right then maybe he'll insist that day care centers buy a license if they want to read books to the children.

Libraries hold book readings for children too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hesitations, 10 Feb 2009 @ 11:08am

"I would think that in purchasing a book, some of the associated rights"

This is your mistake. "purchasing"

You do not purchase a book. You acquire only a licensing right subject to the EULA printed in the front cover of the book.

Sound famliar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Brinker, 10 Feb 2009 @ 11:11am

Amearicans with Dissablitys act
Isent text to speech already covered with the ADA act? IE blind people? How do you take away a blind persons right to interact with the world and then offer to sell it back to them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2009 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re: Amearicans with Dissablitys act
  Copyright law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 10 Feb 2009 @ 11:21am

WRONG
Nope, wrong, FAIL. The rights he is referring to are audio RECORDING rights. Verbal speech is NOT covered under any contract or copyright law I have ever seen in regards to book publishing. Sorry, take your fascist, bootheel stamping garbage somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2009 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re: WRONG
  Why would the Authors Guild want to let an annoying little fact like that get in their way? They're taking their cues from the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, BMI, et al.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch, 11 Feb 2009 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re: WRONG
  Then why is he mentioning those rights? There is no audio recording involved. So this is either stupid, or dumb. Take your pick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Person, 5 Jan 2014 @ 5:44pm
  
  Re: WRONG
  Actually, fascism would LOVE to make it illegal to read books aloud. They weren't fond of books, but they were quite fond of law. They burned books very often. Fascism is just another form of socialism, like communism. IT is centered around the state, rather than the feds, but still very central in its own way.
  
  The thing you are calling fascism (Libertarianism) promotes less law and the only resemblance to fascism it carries is the preference to state law over federal law. This is also different however, as state law in fascism is extremely strict, whereas in Libertarianism, state law is meant to be loose so that the smallest level of community can govern itself without interference, like city government, or even as small a unit as a family.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :facepalm:, 26 Feb 2017 @ 10:36pm
    
    Re: Re: WRONG
    holy crap hahahaha!!!! You think historical and political mentions of 'the State' is talking about -US States-?! That is hilariously dumb! 'The State' is a generalized description applied to -any federal jurisdiction. (Hence England, Germany, France, and pretty much every western nation using that phrase) Fascism, unlike your extremely infantile description, is an authoritarian regime based around strict control of life 'for the betterment of the state' that they want to believe will reduce crime, increase individual happiness and prosperity, and be more effective than the "laissez-faire attitude afflicting other countries." (Of course, this itself is an extremely broad and simplified view, and to fully understand it and its implications for everything economical, political, psychological, et al takes a great effort. You can't even begin to truly know why it came about, why people wanted, what its core tenets are, and what its mission was without an enormous effort put into studying it that is definitely greater than listening to idiots share their retarded misinformed viewpoints on am radio or fox news or whatever isn't considered 'Fake News. WRONG'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sf suave, 10 Feb 2009 @ 1:01pm

Author book signings
So, I was at a book signing the other day where the author sat and read extracts from the book.

Is this guy actually suggesting that the author should pay himself for the right to read aloud his own work?

Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 10 Feb 2009 @ 2:25pm
  
  Re: Author book signings
  No, but he better pay his publisher, who likely has an exclusive on, if not outright ownership of, the copyright. Damn those thieving writers for selling more copies of their books!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason (profile), 10 Feb 2009 @ 4:12pm
  
  Re: Author book signings
  No, in fact, he probably owes his publisher royalties.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teknossapien, 10 Feb 2009 @ 2:18pm

Crap
One more thing I used to enjoy doing, reading to my kids is now illegal. hope the book reading police don't come knocking at my door.
Seriously does this means that all the school and the libraries will have cease and desist letters sent in the event of story time ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nell, 13 May 2020 @ 3:50am
  
  Re: Crap
  I wondered about the same thing. But does anybody here know that the Authors Guild has a website where famous actors read book aimed a children? How do they circumvent that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Durand, 10 Feb 2009 @ 2:25pm

So kids books should have a ....
shrink-wrap license for the performance rights, so that parents are not raising their kids to life of crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael B, 10 Feb 2009 @ 3:02pm

Thanks for Ignoring the Visually Handicapperdf+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael B, 10 Feb 2009 @ 3:04pm

Thanks for Ignoring the Visually Handicapped
(I think this got submitted before I finished!)

I was elated when I saw that Kindle 2 had text-to-speech built in. I am visually handicapped and thought that would be great, but now this nutjob comes along and says it's illegal. Thanks so much for your insight... you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LostSailor, 10 Feb 2009 @ 3:07pm

Audio rights is not "reading aloud"
This is not about reading to your kids at night, it's about audio rights, part of the bundle of rights an author has in his/her book.

What will be interesting, assuming it goes to court if it goes that far, is if by selling content for a dedicated devise that is designed to produce an audio version is considered actual "production" of an audio version under the terms of the copyright act.

Text-to-Speech is permitted in producing books for the visually disabled, no matter who has the audio rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aithne Jarretta, 10 Feb 2009 @ 3:11pm

Read Out Loud & Kindle
Interesting that the Writer's Guild would come up with this. The Adobe program on my computer also has a 'Read Out Loud' aspect. I never use it because it is flawed with mispronounced words, emotionless diction and a male voice that sounds like a robot. Will Kindle have these features? As an author of both print and ebooks, I am not offended if someone purchases my book and chooses to listen to it. Infact, IMHO this opens my work to readers/listeners that may have missed it before. Aithne Jarretta Parnormal romance Author Feed Your Romantic Spirit ~ Indulge in the Magic! CONCENTRIC CIRCLES (available on Kindle & in print)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sandra Chung, 10 Feb 2009 @ 3:46pm

Meadow muffins!
The DRM applies to digital reproduction. Voice isn't even analog.

The 'read aloud' function for e-books was given the legal thumbs up for sight impaired people, so this Guild can go pound sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason (profile), 10 Feb 2009 @ 4:10pm

Sorry kindle
Sorry, Kindle, but you simply have to tell all your vision-impaired customers to suck it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tess, 10 Feb 2009 @ 5:17pm

Someone's missing something...
...there is a world of difference between text-to-speech and an audiobook recording. The one does not actually replace the other, although it's certainly better than nothing.

*sigh*

Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fastfinge, 10 Feb 2009 @ 5:37pm

In Fact, This Is Probably Legal
As a completely blind person who purchases ebooks regularly from fictionwise.com, restricting the ability to have books produced in text to speech is both legal and done all the time. If you view any book on fictionwise.com, and scroll down the page a bit, you will sometimes see something like:
"Microsoft Reader (LIT) Format: Printing DISABLED, Read-Aloud DISABLED
Adobe Acrobat (PDF) Format: Printing DISABLED, Read-Aloud DISABLED
All Other formats: Printing DISABLED, Read-aloud DISABLED"

If you are a blind reader, in order to legally read your ebook, you must make sure that read-aloud is set to enabled on at least one format. Apparently, the DMCA/copyright law effectively trump the ADA. What I wonder is: by read-aloud, does fictionwise exclusively mean TTS software, or does it mean that anyone who purchases the ebook isn't allowed to read it? If I buy an ebook with read-aloud disabled, can I ask Mike to read it to me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LostSailor, 11 Feb 2009 @ 7:12am
  
  Re: In Fact, This Is Probably Legal
  Copyright law specifically carves out an exception for producing books (braille, audio) for visually impaired readers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gendo Ikari, 7 Oct 2011 @ 11:54am
  
  Re: In Fact, This Is Probably Legal
  Piracy trumps both.
  
  Citizens are under a civil obligation to protest unjust laws by refusing to obey them. So get your books for free, in formats that work for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent McBurney, 10 Feb 2009 @ 11:42pm

text to speech is not audio
There should be a difference between text to speech programs and an audio of a book. An audio book has someone reading the text who knows how to read out loud and enhances the text. A text to speech is a programmed conversion of words to speech. If Amazon is employing James Earl Jones to sit in a room and read a book out loud every time someone makes a word to speech request they may be in trouble but since it's a souless computer program what's the fuss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jeff, 21 Jun 2017 @ 7:24pm
  
  Re: text to speech is not audio
  So, by this reasoning, it's the quality of the work that defines copyright? Frankly, that's idiotic.
  
  Shouldn't it be the commercialization of that recording, be it by computer or by "someone reading the text who knows how to read out loud?"
  
  If a production is made for commercial gain-- ie. sold to the public-- then copyright should come into play, and the author should be due a royalty on each copy. If I read a book out loud, even if I record it and distribute it to others for free and with no intention to profit from the work, then it shouldn't be subject to copyright anymore or any less than the "text to speech" function. Or, rather, as I believe is true under US copyright law, the copyright holder should retain the right to sue for 100% of the profit made by my recording which, in this case, is zero.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Fresco, 11 Feb 2009 @ 3:44am

No need for copyright or IP laws
The resource-based economy quickly goes to work on clean sources of energy. This is only possible when there are no more monetary limitations in the way of accomplishing or providing what’s needed. With the restrictions of profit, property, and scarcity eliminated, research labs would quickly begin working together and sharing information freely. There would be no need for patents or proprietary information since the end goal is not to make money in order to continue working, but to achieve results that are
freely and quickly available to the planet’s entire population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W. Shanck, 11 Feb 2009 @ 7:01am

What about the rights of physically challenged people?
If this does become an issue in the courts and the Author's Guild is triumphant, then what about disability laws? Are we supposed to tell a blind person that they can never again hear a book that doesn't have an associated "audio right." Instead of being about how much money you can squeeze from a creative work by never having anything drop into the public domain, maybe everyone needs to remember that the intended purpose of copyright law was supposed to protect the creator's creation for a LIMITED time and create and atmosphere where knowlege was eventually shared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop it now!, 11 Feb 2009 @ 7:27am

you realize that by REMEMBERING the book you just read quietly to yourself, technically you have RECORDED it in your neurons? you now owe the authors mafia..sorry i mean guild eleven squillion bazillion dollars...thats $1 per neuron......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SunKing, 11 Feb 2009 @ 8:11am

Suuuuurrreeee.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abba12, 11 Feb 2009 @ 3:50pm

so, techdirt. I am blind. as a blind person, may i use text to speech to read your website? :P

*sigh* politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2009 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  Techdirt releases all articles into the public domain and deny any right to their work.
  
  do whatever the hell you want with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.audiobookrentals.net, 13 Feb 2009 @ 9:12am

Audio books have been around for years without problems who needs a kindle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marilynn Byerly (profile), 13 Feb 2009 @ 10:13am

the difference between TTS and audio rights
The real point of the Author Guild's comments is the legal issue of whether text-to-speech and audio rights are the same thing. This hasn't been clarified in court, and until it is, authors and publishers are afraid that by allowing TTS through the Kindle or any other reader, they are losing their audio rights.

Right now, many of the major audio book companies won't touch a book that has TTS so publishers are blocking TTS via DRM.

This situation is a good thing for the disabled and other readers because once this issue is settled, probably in favor of TTS and audio rights being different things, TTS will be allowed on all electronic books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dale, 13 Feb 2009 @ 5:27pm

Handicapped readers
There are others who are handicapped by illiteracy and other mental maladies that make it difficult if not impossible to enjoy literature. Such idiodic ideas hender those in our society better themselves.
But then, that's just my opinion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, 27 Feb 2009 @ 12:40pm

Derivative, Recording and Performance, Oh My!
There is no derivative. A derivative needs to be substantially different yet based upon the original work. Strike one.

There isn't any physical copy of the audio before or after the book is being read. If the audio is not set in some type of medium, there can be no recording rights issue.
Strike Two.

Performance rights only come into play if it's performed in public. Listening to a kindle or reading a book out loud in a public park could be infringement if you have an audience. Even then it's not the kindle but you performing it for an audience in public that would be illegal.
Strike Three.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bookslinger, 4 Mar 2009 @ 8:14am

He he
It's that new turning point for another industry isn't it! The publishing world are getting used to a new world with e-books and at the moment, for wont of a better phrase, they are bricking it.

However, some are reacting, I've noticed one publisher has set up Book Army to bring authors and readers together, promote e-books and much more...it will be interesting to see if they kick off at all, and indeed how the e-book market develops. The whole notion of a kindle reading out stuff kind of disgusts me in someways - no. 1 you are no longer reading it, no. 2 it would be very annoying on public transport without headphones! Then again, is that any different to audiobooks? The answer is no.

It's all very complicated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 23 Apr 2009 @ 5:54pm

replying to the right
What a silly right Aitken had mentioned. If you stop people from ROL our futur education will be a mess. Reporter won't have any talking practice for there show, soon they will talk like a moron with a fade pronounsation. Talking is something needed and importantly a correct pronounsation. I hope you authorities rethink about this decision.

P.S. My english is bad cause it is our lag of education from Bonaire. I hope you reader understand my point. Thanks alot :P Ciao
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2011 @ 7:13am

huj n yjbh yi jjn nu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gendo Ikari, 7 Oct 2011 @ 11:50am

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - The Bard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bookreader, 29 Apr 2013 @ 2:23am

Get it right!
Please go read copyright law before writing silly articles. Look at the definition of public performance and you will see that you can safely read to your own children.
A lot of fuss about nothing. Text to speach though is a different matter and the AG are right to raise questions. It needs clarifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clare Trautvetter, 27 Feb 2015 @ 2:37pm

Reading a book and recording it and posting it on Facebook
I want to know if it's legal to record my voice reading a book and share/post the audio on my Facebook page.........?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HopeFollows (profile), 29 Sep 2015 @ 8:27pm

Similar to Clare but on YouTube
I've actually been doing some video readings of books on YouTube, ones I personally wrote and other authors wrote. I did get permission from an author, considering the one I wrote had some similarities to a series he had done. The other, well, she's been dead for 30 years, counting 2015.
I am only wondering, though. Do we still need consent from the publishers, even after the author's been dead for 10+ years? I want to read another author's work, but nervous to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Debby Stevens, 3 Apr 2017 @ 12:15am

is it ok to make audio book just for oneself to listen to?
is it ok to make audio book just for oneself to listen to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugo Gongora, 17 Oct 2017 @ 7:31am

Need non copy write material for teaching english as a second language Hi, I am
Hi, I am an ESL English teacher, need listen and read English articles, so I can improve my students reading. Can you send me some? Specialy for mid English levels.

Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anne Inconvenient-Truth, 28 Jan 2018 @ 2:54pm

Oops. Looks like Moses is in trouble for invoking prior art
Exodus 24:7New International Version (NIV)

7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]