The only reasonable argument to the contrary is that Amazon owns the Kindle device, and the TTS constitutes a transfer of audio from Amazon to the reader. I hope that no one makes such an argument, though, as the consequences would be disastrous.

Umm.. There is already a DMCA exemption for removing DRM in order to facilitate TTS, as I outlined in my post here:”

The copyright belongs to the author, and TTS is one of the rights within the copyright in the same way as paperback and audio rights are part of that copyright.

Unless the author leases or gives permission for the publisher or consumer to use TTS, then no one, including Congress, can take that element of copyright without stealing the copyright or tossing the whole concept of copyright away.

DRM is something added to the material by the publisher or distributor to protect the copyright, but it isn’t part of the copyright.

Thanks,
David

Umm.. There is already a DMCA exemption for removing DRM in order to facilitate TTS, as I outlined in my post here:

http://www.teleread.com/2009/10/13/two-weeks-with-an-astak-5-preconceptions/#comment-1146935

Here’s the appropriate wiki entry for reference as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millenium_Copyright_Act#Anti-circumvention_exemptions

The only problem at this point is that it’s up to the consumer to come up with the DRM circumvention, instead of being able to demand that the DRM be modified or removed by the publisher. By adding TTS DRM, the publishers are in effect making it perfectly legal to remove ALL DRM from their files, simply because there’s no way to selectively remove just the TTS part.

Text-to-speech is a natural place that technology WILL take us. Publishers would be wise to embrace the change now, before it’s too late.

In another light, allowing TTS could be one ‘value added’ reason for publishers to keep ebook prices artificially high, as they desire to do.

Seriously, though, who among us would choose to listen to an entire text-to-speech book if they didn’t have to? And who would buy *both* print *and* audio — with its *miserable* (or nonexistent) bookmarking, for the purpose of being able to continue hands-free in the same book he or she was reading with their eyes? Publishers are losing exactly *zero* audiobook sales to tts.

It’s plain, clueless panic. Same as always.

Until the techies come up with an “Inflexion Markup Language” to provide inflexion cues and render natural computerized performances there is no real competition for human performance.

Of course, a true Inflexion Markup standard is just a few years away (the video game industry alone will ensure we get one) but that’s a problem for the future.

TTS is an element of copyright, and Congress cannot legislate away copyright.

Fair use means quoting a small portion of a work in a review or scholarly article, not quoting the whole dang work for your personal use.

TTS isn’t remotely similar to changing the font size or color.

The real heart of this mess is that most publishers have no legal right to allow TTS with their books because they haven’t contracted those rights with their authors.

In publishing, rights refer to the different types of format sales for a written work. Some of the rights that can be contracted from an author are the right to publish a paperback version, a hardcover version, an ebook version, and an audio version of a work.

TTS really hasn’t been clarified as a right. Some think it is part of the ebook rights, some audio book rights, and some a right by itself. This can only be decided by a major court case, and the TTS right has so little value that no one will bother to take it to court.

The best, but, unfortunately, the most expensive solution, is for publishers to offer a new contract or codicil to the contract of each author for each book for TTS.

Again, TTS has so little value as a right that I doubt this will happen.

In the case of many of the small publishers, the authors have agreed to allow TTS without it being specified as a right in their contract so the ebook is DRM free. Most of us do this for the sight impaired.

Reading needs to be viewed as competing for peoples down time. If I’m really into a book but I have to do an activity where I can’t visually read (wash dishes, commute, walk the dog, exercise) and I have the option to switch to TTS then I’m going to consume (purchase) more books. If not I’m forced to make an alternate choice.

For about 5 years I was listening to audio books and consuming twice as many books. I got pissed off at the industry’s response to TTS so I’ve stopped buying audio books and now I listen to music and podcasts. I keep up on current events and it’s much easier to not have to keep track of where I am in two books.