Authors Guild Digs Itself In Deeper Concerning Kindle Text-To-Speech

from the stop-digging dept

Fri, Feb 13th 2009 12:01pm — Mike Masnick

We were among many different sites that laughed at the ridiculous assertions by Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken's attempt to rewrite copyright law concerning the "right" for people with a legally purchased ebook to have a Kindle ebook reader with text-to-speech read the book aloud. Aiken said:

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

This is, of course, incorrect. To demonstrate how incorrect it was, we applied it to other scenarios: such as reading to your kids at night. This wasn't to suggest that we actually thought Aiken meant you couldn't read to your kids at night, but to show how wrong the original comment was. Amusingly, the Authors Guild seems to have thought we actually believed this, and has issued an attempted clarification, which only serves to make things worse.

First, the Authors Guild isn't backing down -- but says it's "studying this matter closely." Instead, it recommends that authors who haven't already made ebook agreements avoid doing so. Because, you know, when you're an author the best possible thing is to make it more difficult for people who want to read your book to get it. That doesn't seem very smart. All because someone might listen to their Kindle read it aloud? I would think that the potential of lost readers would be a much bigger concern.

Furthermore, in clarifying that, yes, indeed, reading to your kids is legal, the Guild claims:

The remarks have been interpreted by some as suggesting that the Guild believes that private out-loud reading is protected by copyright. It isn't, unless the reading is being done by a machine. And even out-loud reading by a machine is fine, of course, if it's from an authorized audio copy.

I'm having trouble seeing how that's correct, though, it would be great if the usual assortment of IP lawyers chimed in on this one. Having a machine read to you in the privacy of your own home isn't a performance, so there's no performance rights issues. Then if you go down the whole list of rights covered by copyright, none of them seem to apply. It seems that the Authors Guild is making up a new right (watch out, now the lobbyists will try to get it added): the "you can't do anything innovative unless you pay extra" right.

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
Companies: amazon

33 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael Kohne, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:29pm

Edge cases...
Engadget's Nilay Patel tries to show that this is closer to an edge case than it at first appears.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/11/know-your-rights-does-the-kindle-2s-text-to-speech-infringe-a u/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanC, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:32pm

Neil Gaiman actually got into an argument/discussion with his agent over the issue:

Her [Agent's] 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 [Gaiman's] 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re:
  I was going to post Gaiman's comment (they can also be found on Boing Boing http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/11/neil-gaiman-waxes-se.html), but I see someone beat me too them. When it comes down to it, I'll take Gaiman's opinion (an ACTUAL author, and a very successful and well respected one) over some corporate shills anyday.
  
  Must be kind of hard to be taken seriously when even the people you are suppose to be "representing" and "protecting" think you are full of crap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:39pm

Ever notice
It seems that any large group of people who are affected by the internet and have one group to represent them (RIAA, MPAA, author's guilds, etc, etc) has that group lose sight of their purpose. The groups always end up only caring about themselves and money. They no longer represent their member's best interest because all of these old people who have no clue how to operate technology freak out about every possible little change that they really can benefit from. Instead they waste insane amounts of money screwing over the public. The faster this group goes away, along with the RIAA and all of the ilk, the better.

The internet is here, deal with it and stop screwing over the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric (profile), 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:43pm

What about folks like my girlfriend who need text to speech because of disabilities?

The Author's Guild is out of their minds.

Eric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes complete sense, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:47pm

So, does this mean closed captioning is illegal because it is the text form of copyrighted audio/video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TriZz, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:48pm

Explained...
Engadget had an ex-copyright attorney explain this situation on their site a few days back and it was really interesting...the attorney seemed to agree with the guild.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/11/know-your-rights-does-the-kindle-2s-text-to-speech-infr inge-au/

I think this whole thing is stupid, I would assume that if the software is just reading text and not creating an audio file then there's no violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TriZz, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:48pm
  
  Re: Explained...
  ...looks like someone beat me to it :/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re: Explained...
  Engadget had an ex-copyright attorney explain this situation on their site a few days back and it was really interesting...the attorney seemed to agree with the guild.
  
  I read his explanation, and I think he's wrong. The EFF (also copyright attorneys) explanation is much more compelling.
  
  The biggest problem is that the TTS is not a *fixed copy* and its not a *public performance* so it's not a violation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TriZz, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:50pm

Actually...
...what they really fear, is that no one is going to buy the audio copy if the Kindle will read to them. I believe that's all this really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: Actually...
  ...what they really fear, is that no one is going to buy the audio copy if the Kindle will read to them. I believe that's all this really is.
  
  That seems absurd. I'm not sure how this device works, but it sound like mechanical speech to me. If people were happy with mechanical speech, they wouldn't hire actual people to do audiobooks. Just as certain authors are successful because of their writing style, certain people are used for audio books because of their narrating style. HOW people speak, can sometimes be more powerful than what they are saying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:50pm

This is like making binoculars illegal at a game you've already purchased tickets for so that you will be enticed to buy better seats in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GJ, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:57pm

I still don't get it...
so... if I read a book out look in the public market square, I'm breaking copyright law?

If I have a pianola, and I make it play a music roll in public, I'm breaking copyright law.

But if I have a pianola and I make it play a music roll in the privacy of my own home, I should be ok. Right?

What's the difference between a pianola and a kindle then?

--GJ--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:07pm

Reading to your kids
One thing not clear from the Guild's "clarification" - does reading to your kids become a copyright violation when you have more than 3.4 kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Duncan Yoyo, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re: Reading to your kids
  >One thing not clear from the Guild's
  >"clarification" - does reading to
  >your kids become a copyright violation
  >when you have more than 3.4 kids?
  
  And what about story time at the public library?
  
  Do I need to add The WGA to my DEATH TO THE RIAA bumper sticker? Or Richard the Third improved
  FIRST WE KILL ALL THE ^COPYRIGHT LAWYERS
  Bumpersticker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jeadly (profile), 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:18pm

Two Things
I had two thoughts about this today.

First, what are the standards in music? Buying sheet music of a song is not the same as buying a CD of a musician playing the song. But you certainly have the right to play the sheet music at home on a piano. Do you also have the right to have a synthesizer play back the song? I think so. Is that really viable competition to (and infringement of) the professionally produced and artist performed version? I wouldn't think so.

Second, what if there was an automatic writing machine that could create works of text with virtually no human input? Would it put human authors out of business or would the Writer's Guild assert that human authors brought something more to the table than machines could?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the audio books are performances of written material. They're also selling the source material which is essentially instructions for creating private performances, whether human or not. If they're upset about losing some income, the Writers Guild should be focusing on value they could add rather than trying to limit the options of its customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital_Monk, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:30pm

Blinded by greed
Has anyone even given thought to what the text-to-speech means to the sight impaired? There are many people who can see only a little that are legally blind. Does the Authors Guild really want to get into a legal fight with a disabled person who now has a way of getting access to all that content. I seem to remember Target getting slapped with a lawsuit recently for not making their website accessible to the blind. All kindle really has to do is label this feature Handicap Accessible and the Authors Guild will have to shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry the Lesser, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:43pm

Contract issue (not copyright)
This is a contract issue, not a copyright issue. Imagine that Amazon signed a contract for "electronic distribution" where "electronic" is defined to exclude "audio". "Audio" is then outside of the contract.

The dispute arises because the actual contract is probably less clear that "audio" is excluded from the rights that Amazon purchased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cannen, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:43pm

Free Publicity
Assuming someone overheard the audio on an ebook, how much are they going to hear? Maybe enough to get interested in the book and buy it themselves? I doubt someone will be close enough to hear the whole thing. Especially if headphones are used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:49pm

Blind People
I'm surprised the various blindness advocacy groups haven't weighed in on the issue. As mentioned above, they occasionally sue website to make their presence felt. Expect them to come down on this like a blindfolded kid swinging at a pinata.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thwaaack, 13 Feb 2009 @ 2:06pm

Readers for the blind?
I have to wonder if this was an issue when tools for the handicapped came out which do exactly what the Kindle does, only from hard copy instead of a digital file. In my opinion, this is nothing less than the AG trying to roadblock innovation, because of perceived loss of revenue. I highly doubt anyone will refrain from buying audiobooks if they enjoy such things, all because a device can belch out the words in robotic monotone. Every audiobook I've heard has been a performance in and of itself, not someone reading in monotone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
teknosapien, 13 Feb 2009 @ 2:57pm

Umm wait a moment
The remarks have been interpreted by some as suggesting that the Guild believes that private out-loud reading is protected by copyright. It isn't, unless the reading is being done by a machine. And even out-loud reading by a machine is fine, of course, if it's from an authorized audio copy.
so all those Machines that are used to help the visually impaired are now illegal, guess they hate their customer base and want it to shrink ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anymouse, 13 Feb 2009 @ 3:05pm

Readers for the Blind
"I'm surprised the various blindness advocacy groups haven't weighed in on the issue."

They would have, but due to potential copyright violations, all text readers for the blind have been temporarily disabled until this is resolved.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luci, 13 Feb 2009 @ 7:13pm

Text-To-Speech, illegal?
Okay, so... I'm legally blind. I use text-to-speech and various other programs. Now you're going to tell me that I have no right to 'read' a book I legally purchased when there's no audiobook version available? Go ahead, TRY to stop me. I'm sick of people taking on extra 'rights' they aren't allowed and trying to screw folks like me. Take your book and cram it up the chocolate highway, asshats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Sure, 14 Feb 2009 @ 5:37am

Does this apply to music as well?
So, if we can't read books out-loud because it's a derivative work, does this mean we can't write down the notes and words from recorded music and read them... because that would be a derivative work also?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter, 14 Feb 2009 @ 7:36am

we're all in trouble
Teachers and students for reading text books out loud in class.
Preachers for reading the gospel to the masses.
Lawyers for quoting lawbooks in courts.
actors for reading books for the library for the blind.

just boils down to greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 14 Feb 2009 @ 12:58pm

Author's Guild and Kindle
As an IP attorney, I believe Michael is dead right (and fair and balanced, to revert to the old Fox lie - even though it is true here).

I think the Author's Guild is trying the time-worn old "throw it up against the wall" trick - if it "sticks", they get more money, if it doesn't "stick", everyone just says "Aw, heck!" and "goes home".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 14 Feb 2009 @ 9:59pm

Buch of hooey...
for this to be a copyright infringement, it has to be an infringement of one of the copy "rights" in the US Copyright Act -- copying, distribution, preparing derivative works, public display & public performance. You can forget the "public" part since there's no "public" involved -- each performance is of a single copy to a single person, and it's done by that person him/herself on equipment he/she owns and controls. There's no copying or distribution of anything other than the original electronic book, which (we presume) Amazon has a license to do. And, there's no derivative work, because derivative works have to be "fixed" -- something would have to record the output.

Even if any of this did happen, it would be Kindle OWNER, not Amazon doing it. And, that means that Amazon would only be liable for selling a device used to circumvent copyright. But, under the Betamax case, as long as that ability had "substantial noninfringing uses," Amazon isn't liable. And, there are several substantial noninfringing uses -- playing public domain books, playing audio of books which do not have audio versions for blind people, etc....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MikeyTG, 15 Feb 2009 @ 12:09pm

Hey, they are a GUILD
When I hear the word "guild", I think of medieval dudes in tights and foppy hats working the big lever on an ancient printing press.

These guys don't change that impression at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thomas, 15 Feb 2009 @ 12:42pm

Public Libraries
The public libraries do pay an annual fee for children's story hours, but it's considered performance and it's not a lot of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thomas, 16 Feb 2009 @ 4:15pm

Won't hurt audio book sales
People who buy audio books look for specific persons doing the audio since there's a wide variety of people doing the audio. When audio books are reviewed, the name of the reader is given; the buyers are picky. The implication is that a computer rendered voice for Kindle2 isn't going to be popular among audio book fans. There are popular readers who do the audio for the books and people look for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robin, 25 Feb 2009 @ 11:59am

Luddites
the luddites are at it again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25blount.html?_r=1

this time by the guild's president, roy blount.

bullet points...

first mr. blount sets up his straw man

"given all the new ways of not getting paid that new technology affords authors"

to protect his inability to deal with and adapt to technological innovation, as well as establish his victim status.

then, as mike pointed out above, he goes for the "It seems that the Authors Guild is making up a new right ...: the "you can't do anything innovative unless you pay extra" right. " by stating quite openly

"For the record: no, the Authors Guild does not expect royalties from anybody doing non-commercial performances of “Goodnight Moon.” If parents want to send their children off to bed with the voice of Kindle 2, however, it’s another matter."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C Royer, 16 Apr 2009 @ 8:50am

Kindle fuss
This is why we can't have solar power until they find some way to sell the sun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]