-A Computer Programmer
(One of the few who could probably make the correct markup unaided.)

But as a blind person wrote in the other thread, or as I wrote about reading with an actor, you want to do it with no inflections for the benefit of the listener.

There of course will always be a place for books read by actors. But what I think it would replace is audiobooks for textbooks, and weed out all the crap audiobooks made just to have something to listen to in your car, and what might happen is it creates a new genre of audiobook made very well and for entertainment.

TV (100), that is SO wrong. But not everything that’s wrong is illegal.

KatG (101), you say this: I’m not making the assertion that the text-to-speech is the deciding factor in buying the Kindle for many people… and then say this: I’m making the assertion that the text-to-speech function helps to sell the Kindle and to make the Kindle slightly more attractive and more competitive than its rivals…

Dissect that for a moment. If the TTS function is not the deciding factor in buying a Kindle for at least some people, then adding it would not benefit Kindle sales. However, you assert that the TTS function makes the Kindle slightly more attractive and competitive; for that to be true, the TTS function must be the deciding factor for some people. N people would buy Kindle 2 without the TTS feature, while N+M people would buy it with the TTS feature. So you are, indirectly at least, asserting that TTS is the deciding factor for some Kindle sales.

M, to John’s point, is probably *tiny*. In which case, so what?

Mark (102): Saying that without authorization its illegal for a human to read someones book for profit but its legal for a computer to read the book for profit (i.e. the computer-maker) seems silly just because the computer can’t do as good of a job.

It’s legal for a human to read a book for profit — it just has to be a private performance. (Think nannies reading to children.) It’s legal (or should be) for a computer to read the book for profit — in a private performance.

If you made a podcast of the Kindle reading Old Man’s War, that would violate copyright. It would still be a crappy recording, but its crappiness has no bearing on the copyright violation.

The Kindle’s crappiness is a pragmatic issue. It won’t significantly eat into audiobook sales — wouldn’t even if illegal Kindle-podcasts abounded — because audiobooks are such better performances of the text. I think that was John’s point. (He’ll thwack me with his clue-stick if I’m wrong.)

On the other hand, I really hate the nickle-and-dime concept, that each and every possible way something can be used has to be individually licensed. I’ve heard the movie industry is working on ways to make you pay for the ability to fast-forward. You buy the book, you should be able to read it how you like, or have it read to you.

I don’t think (but am not sure) its illegal to hire someone to read the book to you, so why should be be illegal to buy some program to read the book to you.

On the other hand, I really do think this will cut into audio-book sales. You laugh at the ability of the computer synthesis speech but I laughed at the idea of people watching movies on 2″ screens, people will do it if its cheap and free is about as cheap as it gets.

“There is no way that you can call that a derivative work, PERIOD. It does not contain a single character, period, or quotation mark from the original work.”

That is almost hilariously off-base.

Are you aware that Mickey Mouse’s image isn’t actually, itself copywritten? Steamboat Willy is, and Mickey Mouse’s image is protected because using him is the creation of a derivative work* of Steamboat Willy. Derivation doesn’t require copying. Not at all. Not in theory. Not in practice. Not in the law. (keep in mind, that these days, Mickey Mouse doesn’t look like the (as far as I know, unnamed) Mickey Mouse that was in Steamboat Willy).

Incidentally, the whole series of questions about “what if you try to edge around being declared a derivative work with this sneaky trick or that sneaky trick” are also off-base. American law** doesn’t recognize sneaky tricks. American law is very VERY results based. Laws are enforced primarily on their intended effect (as interpreted by judges) not on their explicit wording (though, obviously, wording guides judges’ beliefs about intended effect).

*the creation of certain derivative works is not banned through copyright, under fair use

**other country’s judicial systems are far more literal, e.g. Japan, where gambling is technically illegal, but almost every single video-arcade has slot machines, and video-poker, and pachinko, because they formally separate the game-playing system from the redemption to cash system (that sort of thing doesn’t hold water in the U.S.A.)