Is it legal for Amazon to put your ebook into it's kindle's read out loud feature? Some say yes and some say no. Author's Guild is urging authors to negotiate those rights.

Publishers Weekly and Author's Guild both have articles on the subject. Interesting reading.

Read what PW has to say here:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6637184.html?nid=2286&source=title&rid=1609285953


The Author's Guild article appears on it's website:
http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/e-book-rights-alert-amazons-kindle-2.html

I for one am thinking that unless you have negotiated this in your contract to retain the rights to audio recording, you may be out in the cold.

If this is allowed to continue without paying the author for their audio rights, authors may be out quite a bit of revenue.

This was discussed in the Chatter forum, fyi.

Hmm, perhaps this thread should merged with the other one, so everything is in one place.

I don't think anybody is out any revenue for this, Zada.

What money would be missing? People who buy it only for the sound?
If the feature sells more books (which I doubt) it would be more royalties for the author.

This is a tough subject. I doubt if there are any quick and easy answers.

I am grateful for perfect sight. I don't need glasses for any purpose and can read anything, anywhere. I am grateful for perfect hearing. In fact, my hearing is quite good and was an early warning system when sailing (a mother's ear ). I am grateful for my general good health;though I have a little asthma and when it's really bad, I do look with longing at those handicapped signs for parking.

Am I in the wrong thread? No, I am in this thread to say that if a digitized voice gives a person with less sight and tired eyes the enjoyment of my Kindle book, I am thrilled. On the otherhand, my audio book with the music and the actors with wonderful diction who give life to the characters and resonate with charm, I want people to buy that audio book to pay for the work that went in to it. Those people may be driving or sitting back and relaxing in the evening and just enjoying listening instead of straining their eyes one more hour.

Computer programs already translate voice to type, but it has its glitches. Commerce just has difficulty wrapping its arms around rapidly changing technology - just as the music industry fought Napster and actors are concerned about DVD piracy - but generally something is worked out eventually.

In the meantime, I'll just muddle along, making the best of the changes as they come, a small voice in a sea of change.

Bless you, DK. I understand disabilities and sympathize with those who need the audio versions. But they have to pay for the privelege of audio just like those who buy books. It just stands to reason that Amazon should not be the one to profit solely for the sale of audio. At least, that is how I see it.

I have no real vested interest in it, but I am curious to see how it tuns out. Like you said, you should be compensated for the time and money you have invested in your audio version. I am sure it is wonderful and you deserve anything you get for it. Hopefully you will get enough to pay for the project.

I guess my thought is that by purchasing the Kindle, they have purchased something that they might not be able to read but to which they can listen (thus, the author has a sale instead of no sale). I would find it quite distracting to listen to a digitized voice while reading on a Kindle; and I would find a digitized voice distracting in general from my own imagination giving life to the novel. Therefore, I tend to think that those who use the digitized function would not be a threat to professional audio books. I may be way wrong as I have no annecdotal evidence, just my own thoughts on the matter.

Well, let's examine this. Somebody wants a book they can listen to. Would they buy the Kindle book with robo-voice, or an audio book read in a pleasant voice, perhaps even by a professional actor? For about the same amount of money, right?

Of course, you could envision a family with one blind member who would otherwise buy two versions.....

My feeling is nobody really knows the financial impact, but are batling over abstract points. Seldom a good idea, in my book.

You are probably quite right, lin.

Beats me. I have no idea who would sit through hearing a novel read by a machine.

I remember MacDonald's trying to restrain the Candadian makers of Donald's iced tea mix (probably the only powdered iced tea mix worth mixing) because it interfered with their "Ronald McDonald".

Trying to make it law that a guy can't use his OWN NAME on a product if it conflicts with the name of a cartoon mannequin.

Lawyers almost never tell anybody it's not a good idea to sue.

I've noticed that.

As charming as the notion that the main beneficiaries of Amazon's munificence will be the sight-challenged, I see the this feature's target market being people who buy audio books for car trips or for listening to at work.

The voice won't be robotic for long. Watch, just watch, Amazon will hire actors for it eventually. And Amazon alone will reap the profits.