The Kindle’s text-to-speech capability surprised me by being much better than I imagined it would be. And everyone should expect that in the next few years computer voices will become indistinguishable from human voices (acoustically if not theatrically). The Authors Guild does.

They’re worried that Amazon’s newest e-book device has the potential to undermine the market for audio books. They’re right—it is a threat and audio book publishers should take note. But illegal?

“They don’t have the right to read a book out loud,” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. “That’s an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.”

What next? Sorry, kids, I can’t read you a bedtime story—go buy your own copy. It doesn’t seem like the Guild have been paying attention to what happened to the music industry.

Hey, Authors Guild! Want to protect the audio book business? Here’s how: make better audio books. Hire talented voice actors, make high quality recordings, sell at a fair price, and ditch the DRM that assumes every customer is a thief. I can’t believe those guys are actually talking about adding more DRM to prevent text-to-speech. Doomed, I tell you.

Comments

1. Dave Bruno on 2009-02-12 20:59:31 wrote: As you can imagine, I’ve got a lot of thoughts about this. I will say that it’s definitely illegal. But it will force the restructuring of outdated copyright law. And it could kill the audiobook industry.

2. John on 2009-02-13 06:59:38 wrote: I don’t see how it’s definite at all. There are some tough questions the Guild has to answer. For one, how is reading a book out loud equivalent to making a copy? And what’s the difference between a machine reading a book out loud and a person reading a book out loud?

3. Dave Bruno on 2009-02-13 07:56:37 wrote: It’s not just reading out loud, it’s creating a new product. When I read a story to my children, I am not creating a new product/format. The Kindle does that. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. Personally I think it’s great. But it definitely is illegal based on current copyright law and the way hundreds of thousands of contracts are written. My guess is that copyright law is going to start changing real fast over the next few years.

4. John on 2009-02-13 09:19:08 wrote: I don’t see that. In what way does a machine reading create a product that a human reading does not? For example, if I listen to the Kindle read to me in my car on the way to work. I don’t think there is a difference. It’s not recorded, it’s synthesized and ephemeral. If the worry is about machine readings being used for illegal purposes (like public performances or recordings for sale) then that’s a different argument. Kitchen knives can also be used to kill people but they’re still not illegal.

5. Dave Bruno on 2009-02-13 11:21:45 wrote: Perhaps the main difference is that I’d have to take you along on the car ride to have you read to me. I have to take CDs or MP3s or, now, a Kindle along to get another format. And formats are separate rights under current agreements. Again, I bet this will completely change copyright over the next several years. But for now, I think the Kindle’s audio feature is by law illegal. Though it’s a good thing I’m not a lawyer.

6. Ann on 2009-03-12 12:06:28 wrote: The text-to-speech feature doesn’t create an audio file so I’m not sure it violates the copyright law. It doesn’t actually replicate, duplicate, or convert anything into something tangible. The text-to-speech feature is the same as accessibility software for the blind.