by Tasha February 13th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Is is just me, or is this roughly akin to the WGA flipping out over closed captioning of television programs and movies?

ETA: AFAIK they've never done so; I'm speaking hypothetically.

I was thinking the same thing, Tasha.

I can see both sides of this issue, but agree that there are many other programs out there (Adobe is one) that offers a “read aloud” feature similar to Kindle’s TTS. I am surprised that, with so many e-books available in .pdf format, that this issue has not been addressed previously by AG or someone else.

My opinions on both sides of the issue have already been stated by others (probably better than I could have). So, I will offer a possible solution instead.

In the even that Amazon (etc) did not choose to buy the audio rights to a book, a possible solution would be to limit the number or words that TTS could read at a time. It would not be a fluid read (or as fluid as TTS currently is anyway), but would still assist those that have difficulties reading the words because of a vision imparement or are not sure of pronounciation due to a language barrier. There is usually a “highlight” feature on e-book readers, so the reader could highlight the words that they wanted read aloud and click a button for it to begin.

If TTS were only to allow a continual reading of 8-10 words at a time, it would be (in my opinion anyway) more educational than a substitute for a true audio book. Also, it would deter people from attempting to make the TTS feature a substitute for audio books because you can’t just turn it on and set it down.

If a publisher or author did not want to allow this, then they could eliminate that feature as someone stated Harlequin has done with some of their e-books.

I just thought I would get my 2 cents in there.

In my view, the Authors Guild did do a good thing for authors by keeping Google from grabbing, copying and uploading books without author or publisher permission,
but this latest campaign is really counterproductive for authors. Unfortunately I despair of writers representative organizations ever “getting it” when it comes to new technologies.

I don't see why writers or readers should have to lose in this situation. I think if Amazon has invented something that puts this technology in the hands of everyone, and not just the visually impaired, Amazon should have to pay for it, end of story.

Adobe pdf has a read-aloud function, and you don’t have to be vision-impaired to use it. I just don’t understand why this is an issue now, with Kindle, when it wasn’t before. And if AG had no idea about Adobe’s read-aloud, they’re way behind things.

Although I enjoy playing Devil’s advocate, too, heh, I think authors would be better served by AG letting authors know this is one thing to take into consideration before negotiating their ebooks rights–not necessarily telling them to hold off until some vague future date when the guild gets around to looking into it.

But the question gets murky because they aren't actually making it into an audiobook-they aren't actually changing the format-they're just getting their computer to read the text aloud for them. I don't really see this as any different than if I had a person read the book aloud for me.

Look, I’m well aware of the difference. I’m not trying to argue that at this particular moment text-to-speech violates audio rights or is equivalent to an audiobook, at all. I know it isn’t.

I’m just trying to play Devil’s Advocate a little bit and think of all possibilities. My discussion of audio rights from which you quoted wasn’t related so much to text-to-speech as it was a sort of basic explanation of audio rights in general.

I just don’t see why the AG’s caution is deserving of scorn and ridicule, is all. They’re doing what they’re supposed to do, which is make sure that down the line writers aren’t finding themselves with rights taken away from them with no renumeration.

I don’t see why writers or readers should have to lose in this situation. I think if Amazon has invented something that puts this technology in the hands of everyone, and not just the visually impaired, Amazon should have to pay for it, end of story. It’s not me being greedy, it’s me doing as the AG is doing and saying, “Okay, what could this technology be in ten years? Let’s take care of this problem now.”

I can also confirm 1% ebook sales–actually just under–from my royalty statements. And mine sold better than a lot of similar books from the same house, according to the others I’ve spoken to; personally I think that’s because having started my career in ebooks I already had a following in that format.

Never occurred to me that they considered it in competition with the audiobook market.

Just googled an did find some Harlequin books where it was mentioned that TTS wasn’t available on certain books. I would like to know the reason behind this restriction?* I thought at the time that it seemed very unfriendly to readers with vision or literacy problems who I thought then (and still think) are the major users of TTS.

@MaryK: Have definitely not bought audiobooks (or returned them to the library unfinished) because the the narrator was bad– or even just monotone. I also think a good narrator can improve a mediocre book.

I think the AG would have a hard time actually proving that TTS is a separate right when it adds nothing to the book. I also think that they might come under fire from groups that support accessibility features.

As for the “reading aloud” statement Jane quoted, it made me snort. Most people have a fond memory of a teacher or parent reading a favorite book aloud.

BTW, like other posters here, I have a great respect for well performed/narrated audiobooks. This Kindle 2 feature does not an audiobook make and never will no matter how much technology improves.

As for not having the right to read legitimately purchased books (in any format) out loud, whether to a child, an elderly parent or just as a companionable way to pass an evening, maybe the AG should expand his own reading to include such classics as “1984″ and “Fahrenheit 451″.

I'd be interested to see if that number included all print books available, versus the subset of books available digitally, or whether it's .5-1% of those print books also available digitally.

Good question Miki! Someone more in the know than me would need to answer that. I’d like to know specifically about the % of print/ ebook in the romance genre.

Thank you for that link rebyj it was fascinating reading. (and I clicked on the link to your blog and enjoyed watching the wonderfulness of books being digitalized so thanks for that, too!)

Your welcome Joanne. I got the link to the video at that teleread link on a different dated entry. Thanks for checking my lil blog out.

1% is a correct number according to my last royalty statement, at least, and my books come out in multiple e-formats (Kindle, Sony, Mobi, etc).

Lloyd James will always be for me the voice of Cazaril of The Curse of Chalion by Bujold. A good audio presentation is a performance, not just a TTS reading.

Oh, yes! His interpretation made that book for me. I wouldn’t have gotten half as much out of it by reading it on my own.

Maybe I’m in the minority, but I reject plenty of audiobooks that I want to listen to because I don’t like the quality of the narration. I’d never in a million years consider TTS an audiobook equivalent.

Bundled audio rights – I shudder to think of it. Audiobooks are expensive, and I don’t want to listen to most books anyway. No way would I pay a bundled price when all I wanted was the ebook.

“They don't have the right to read a book out loud,”

That’s the quote by the AG guy. He states baldly that the right to read a book out loud is a derivative audio copyright that is obviously violated every time I read aloud to my daughter. Heck, I read to a whole group of kids at a play center just the other day. There were a bunch of books there and my daughter wanted me to read one and I ended up with about ten kids listening to the story by the end. Come and get me, Disney (it was a sleeping beauty book).

I see nothing different between the text to speech feature on the Kindle that would “entertain” one person in the vicinity of the Kindle as my reading to my daughter.

By the time that AI is sophisticated enough to mimic a professional actor/reader, I suspect that AI would also be sophisticated enough to write the books. By that time, authors will have a whole new problem and that is being redundant.

TTS is just the words and not the nuance.

I have a GPS also that I can download various voices for but the voice doesn’t say all that much, e.g., “In 200 feet turn left.”

*I* am the only person in the world at this moment who is authorized to produce audiobook versions of my novels.

But the question gets murky because they aren’t actually making it into an audiobook–they aren’t actually changing the format–they’re just getting their computer to read the text aloud for them. I don’t really see this as any different than if I had a person read the book aloud for me.

I wouldn’t consider a separate right for someone to want to resize my text to 64-pt Arial to read it better, and I wouldn’t consider a separate right for someone to need a read-aloud utility to translate the text to audio. Provided the utility’s primary use is an accessibility system to aid the visually impaired. My bottom line is that I don’t want to make it harder for the visually impaired to read my book, and I don’t want to make it harder for a person who’s already bought my book to read it.

@Anion – I like the idea of “Kindle rights” – Amazon wants to take a huge hunk, and making them pony up an extra few percent for something that includes kindle audio delivery might be a way for a publisher and/or an author to recoup some of that massive grab.