1) Very few books are available in audiobook format (let alone unabridged).

2) Audiobooks are generally more expensive than their print (or e-book) counterparts.

3) E-books are far more accessible than audiobooks, and have many features that make them easier to use than an audiobook.

4) Nobody is asking to be given anything for free. The NFB is asking that the Kindle be allowed to do what it does out-of-the-box.

So, yeah, you're a jackass.

 Reply

We don't need to, your writing speaks for itself.

 Reply

The subtext to the Authors Guild argument is that they are implying that there is no value to having a human read the book. That really devalues voice actors and authors who impart something more with their reading. If there is a value, people will pay for it. If not, the robots win. Either way, they have no standing for this argument and should back way off.

 Reply

But all of that misses the main point, which is that there is no legitimate claim that the Authors Guild has in the first place. So we never need to do a calculation about whether it's better for publishers or not, whether they might lose money, or whether it's better for blind people to have access to a larger, less expensive library of reading material. We only need to look at the law, and the law says that the Authors Guild has no right to stop Amazon from doing this in the first place.

 Reply

Well, I'm gonna go all devil's advocate nere for a moment. While I believe that the Author's Guild has WAY overreacted--enough so to put them dangerously close to claiming the titile "RIAA Asshats for a New Generation"--they do have one very strong consideration.

Yes, it is true that TODAY's text-to-speech technology does not come even remotely close to a true vocal recording's quality (superior) and emotional resonance (vastly superior). However, that limitation IS likely to change over time...possibly very little time. I can easily see a computer-generated voice becoming not only completely natural sounding but, with expected developments in AI, also a reasonably good "performer" in the not-too-distant future. At that point, human performers could become impacted by this technology--and, BTW, this potential conflict is coming for all forms of performance, including movies with 100% digital actors.

So, while they are, IMO, out of line wacky today, the Author's Guild does need to at least define that line in the sand for protection in future days.

 Reply

*devil's advocate here*

 Reply

Personally I'm not holding my breath for the uncanny valley to be crossed, but I promise you this if it is:

I will pee my pants for exactly 30 seconds and then run around with arms flailing above my head until I get tired and fall asleep. I'll be OK after that.

 Reply

If Congress wants to call the Authors Guild to testify while Congress considers revising copyright law to outlaw text-to-speech, that's fine, but it's Congress that makes the decision and right now the law is pretty clear that Amazon's Kindle doesn't violate copyright.

 Reply

Publishers and studios would have NO obligations to continue working with live performers. I believe that concern is at the heart of the Authors Guild's fears. And this is where collective voices comes into play, to sway opinion favorably in the absence of obligation, whether it is yielding to the combined cries of blind protesters or to the ultimatums of a unionized work force.

Ultimately it will come down to both artistic and business decisions: who can produce what performance at what cost? The near-future is going to be incredibly interesting in this area.

 Reply

*Makes...embarrassed...would be*

Perhaps my first guild should be the Extremely Poor Typists' Guild.

 Reply

Noe. You tpos nedd too xcede 50%. Pleas make moore misteaks and resumit.

 Reply

So before you go spouting off like you know anything realize #1 every PC/Laptop comes with this feature (because of ADA)....and now the AG this is different...this is not right. SCREW THE AG AND SCREW YOU. It is people like you who would actively seek to remove rights from others because of your ignorance. You sir are a plaque and a blight on the American Dream.

/Douche

 Reply

I absolutely disagree with the first half of your argument, HMW. It is NOT ridiculous for ANY group, special interest or otherwise, to speak up or protest about anything they so desire. That's at the heart of the concept of freedom of speech and, IMO, is our civic duty to DO so.

To the second half, it most definitely IS up to Amazon whether or not they wish to accommodate that demand. They ARE a commercial concern and can run their business anyway they desire within the law. However, the way Amazon will arrive at their decision is through considered deliberation, which includes a full hearing of public opinion.

Let the blind voice their thoughts; indeed, encourage them, and anyone else, to do so.

 Reply

For your part, an intelligent observation marred by name calling only reduces your stance, and serves no purpose. Mr. Walrus started his statement by saying he is for the rights of those concerned, but then raised a valid question, to which he did not know the answer.

I, for one, am glad you are not a teach. Little Timmy: "Mrs. Bud-Strange, did the French-Indian War really just involve French Indians?"

Mrs. Bud-Strange: "No, you little ignorant douche, it did not."

Little Timmy: "Thanks Teach, you really set me straight!"

 Reply

That is what it looks like to me.

 Reply

In this case, unlike your bizarrely irrelevant 747 analogy, the technology already exists and, in fact, was already included in the device. It has only been disabled due to political concerns, not practical/technological concerns.

No, we do not need to bow down to the unreasonable demands of extremist groups. Do you believe that re-enabling the existing text-to-speech technology is doing that?

 Reply

Well that makes Ebone and tjmarkham3 certified "DOUCHE BAGS"

Its not about them having a special interest and putting cost on to the AG. It is about the AG trying to claim that the simple text to speech is a performance...which it is clearly not. It is about the AG being greedy. It is about the AG trying to take away rights that the customer has. It is about the AG being "Douche BAGS" just like you two.

 Reply

Um, no you can't. Not even close. What makes you think that?

 Reply

As to the rest of the disagreements, you are correct that my 747 analogy is inappropriate. And you are correct that the NFB has the right to protest. And Amazon has the right to protect itself from litigation by the AG.

 Reply

Your bigotry, however, makes me want to vomit. People are not douche bags for having opinions. You are a douche bag for whining at everyone you disagree with and acting like a 5-year old.

 Reply