The Authors Guild filed complaints that Amazon's Kindle 2 eBook reader device violated copyright terms via its audio function. The audio function on the Kindle 2 allows it to read eBooks aloud. I'm not sure why the Authors Guild claims the audio feature violates copyrights, but an opinion letter sent by the guild's president claims, there is not much difference in the way the device speaks and the way an author speaks when reading his or her own book (The Authors Guild's Attack on the Kindle 2). Copyright law does not protect against books being read aloud. The only time a copyright law would be violated would be if someone were to take a work recorded by the author and make it available for illegal download or broadcast the work without permission. The Kindle 2 uses its own programming to translate the text into recognizable sounds. Humans use their own brains to translate text into recognizable sounds.
I could understand the Guild's view if someone were taking original recordings made by the authors and sharing those files illegally, but shutting down a device because it can translate text into sound is baffling. I own the audio book of Neil Gaiman's Coraline recorded by Neil Gaiman himself. I purchased the audio book from iTunes. If I were to take that file and share it with other users without permission of the copyright holder, then I would be in trouble. However, if I repeat aloud Neil Gaiman's words myself, then no copyright laws would be violated. The Authors Guild cracking down on the speaking capability of the Kindle 2 has caused many consumers to not want to purchase the device from Amazon. Amazon.com is the leading seller of eBooks. Authors make money selling their books in eBook form for use on the Kindle system. Amazon.com also sells audio books, which are official recordings of readings made by publishing and record companies. I think the crack down on the Kindle 2 system is less about copyrights and more about the fact that the Kindle 2 allows consumers to get a text version and an audio version for one price, instead of having to pay for both separately for a combined higher price.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment