Has anyone heard about all the mess going on with the read-aloud technology and the Kindle? Roy Blount Jr., president of the Authors Guild, wrote an op-ed in the Times yesterday about it, and how because it has this new text-to-speech technology, authors should be fairly compensated for it - that Amazon cannot offer this service since copyright-holders are not participating. "What the guild is asserting is that authors have a right to a fair share of the value that audio adds to Kindle 2’s version of books." The Guild has caused quite a stir. The National Federation of the Blind accused them of trying to limit their access.
Authors already get paid for the sale of their books on Kindle. So with audio rights, this means they would get paid more? And wouldn't this mean that Amazon would have to end up charging users more for the reader? It seems this would limit access for people, financially. What about those who use it because they are blind or visually impaired? And then there are the people who simply choose not to use this feature of the Kindle. Maybe Blount is just trying to get authors and publishers an even bigger piece. And just how much control should a creator have over their information? I'm allowed to read aloud to myself in the comfort of my own home. Authors aren't strolling into classrooms, library storytimes, and bedtimes, demanding a fee for their stories having been read aloud. So why get paid for this? Isn't the key difference the fact that this is text-to-speech, that it does not involve a person reading it aloud, properly (like on an audiobook)?
And really, I don't think a computerized voice is going to be confused with one such as those you could find on an audiobook. For those that listen to audiobooks, I'm sure that many are still going to go to the library and get their free David Sedaris audiobook, where he is actually reading one of his books, rather than choose to hear some computer voice. Then again, this is only the beginning of this text-to speech technology on the Kindle 2. With more money being put into read-aloud technology, perhaps it will advance to the point where it will sound just as good as audiobooks. Until then, I'm not sure I fully understand why Blount is so upset.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
My sister has a kindle so this is something we have talked about... alot! Its too bad that this new technology is being challenged.I liked your point about reading books out loud at story time. Can you imagine that getting shutdown?!
While I understand your argument, I'm going to have to side with the authors on this one. They have rights to their intellectual property, and in any situation where money is being made from their creations, they should be able to decide how it can be used (though I understand with different contracts, this might not always be the case).
Yea, I'm you, Patti, and I am surprised that Amazon caved. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/mar/01/authors-guild-blocks-kindle-voice) I can see why authors and publishers might have a more legit claim if the technology was awesome, so that it sounded like a real actor reading the book, but that is not my understanding of the technology. To me, the text-to-speech utility is just that: a utility, which is very different from the artistic work that is an audiobook.
I like what Neil Gaiman ("really, again with the Neil Gaiman, Shellie?" yes. I don't know what all the Gaiman is about.)says: "at the point where (computers) can read books to us as well as we can read them aloud to each other, we will have other things to worry about."
It all comes down to ownership and not wanting to set a precedent.
Post a Comment