May 14, 2009 at 10:01 am
skjoldtc (5/14/2009)
Steve, do you find the Kindle to be worth the cost? I was thinking that for the price, I'd want color. The Kindle II has a battery that is not replaceable. That's a deal breaker for me, I think.
I have a bunch of blog posts on the Kindle that you might check out.
I think that the Kindle is too expensive. I have an associates account with Amazon, and with book reviews, and stuff from my blog, I earned about $200 for the Kindle. So at $150, it made sense to me. I've also purchased perhaps 50 books for it, and if I say that I save $5-10, it's been a good deal.
Color? Not sure, for what? If you want magazines, then I'm not sure it works well. I haven't subscribed to any. Newspapers, book I read, none have color, so no big deal.
I usually have it with me, so if you see me somewhere, ask to see it. Or check out a Kindle locally. Amazon let people register who had Kindles and would be willing to show them off.
May 14, 2009 at 10:09 am
[/quote]
In this case, that would make the Kindle the "performer" since it is doing the reading. If a book publisher expects to be compensated for both the written and read versions, shouldn't they also be responsible for compensating both the author that wrote the material AND the Kindle for its text-to-speech "performance"?[/quote]
Interesting question. Doesn't "Kindle" actually get a cut of the "book" price by virtue of the book being sold in Kindle format? Distribution costs for multiple copies of electronic data are next to nothing. I have to believe that whoever owns Kindle is getting some form of payment; either in margin, or perhaps marketing spiff.
Or, perhaps one could consider that "Kindle" is being paid for all it's performances when it is purchased, given that it is really a "presentation media".
So, this raises the question of whether a writer should be paid more if a book is published in multiple languages. Content is the same, only the presentation changes.
May 14, 2009 at 10:27 am
webrunner (5/14/2009)
...that the text-to-speech feature has the potential to render audiobooks obsolete. Although I think at the present time, the market may see people decide whether they like the sound of the Kindle "voice" enough to forgo paying for a human-performed audiobook....
My prediction, for what it's worth, which is not much, is that text-to-speech will no more replace audiobooks than audiobooks have replaced books. Remember the ruckus when audiobooks first arrived on the scene? Some things is life just can't be replicated. I can foresee advances in text-to-speech technology, but never to the degree that it could replace the human voice and all of it's natural qualities.
There are electronic candles available that produce pleasant aroma, but, you know, they just don't beat the real thing.
On a different note, text-to-speech technology reaches far beyond Kindle. There are tons of freeware products available and even the text-to-speech functionality available in Adobe Acrobat isn't that bad. This technology is being widely incorporated into k-12 and Higher Education. It's a technology and copyright issue, but it's also an accessibility issue.
May 14, 2009 at 10:35 am
bob.willsie (5/14/2009)
In this case, that would make the Kindle the "performer" since it is doing the reading. If a book publisher expects to be compensated for both the written and read versions, shouldn't they also be responsible for compensating both the author that wrote the material AND the Kindle for its text-to-speech "performance"?Interesting question. Doesn't "Kindle" actually get a cut of the "book" price by virtue of the book being sold in Kindle format? Distribution costs for multiple copies of electronic data are next to nothing. I have to believe that whoever owns Kindle is getting some form of payment; either in margin, or perhaps marketing spiff.
Or, perhaps one could consider that "Kindle" is being paid for all it's performances when it is purchased, given that it is really a "presentation media".
So, this raises the question of whether a writer should be paid more if a book is published in multiple languages. Content is the same, only the presentation changes.
They are being paid for publishing in multiple languages, because the book is printed. They get paid on a per book basis, not the language, though the rate could be different for each language, but that would strictly be because of expected volume sold.
I agree with Bob here, that Kindle is being compensated as the performer, whether it's in the purchase price as the markup, or in the contract rate it pays for the content.
I imagine, though perhaps wrongly, that publishing rates are different for each media, considering the potential use. One rate for written, which includes certain inherent 'I can read this out load to my friends, but not in an auditorium' rights. One rate for audio, which includes rights for personal use, convertion to mp3 for my use only, or small group listening (in my car again, but not in a coffee shop). And one rate for electronic delivery. With electronic delivery, this rate would need to cover potential use, which I would think, by default, would include anything a computer might do with it (aside from making illegal copies and distributing them) like display for reading OR having the computer read it to you. Duh. Text - to - speech software has been around for a long time (longer than the Kindle is far enough for this thread), regardless of what you think about the quality. There is no reason to think this shouldn't have been taken into consideration when the electronic rate was negotiated.
Forgetting to negotiate something deemed a reasonable consideration is not cause for a lawsuit.
Dan
May 14, 2009 at 11:05 am
FWIW, as an author, my contracts have different royalty rates for different rights. Foreign languages, audio, etc.
May 14, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I imagine, though perhaps wrongly, that publishing rates are different for each media, considering the potential use. One rate for written, which includes certain inherent 'I can read this out load to my friends, but not in an auditorium' rights. One rate for audio, which includes rights for personal use, convertion to mp3 for my use only, or small group listening (in my car again, but not in a coffee shop). And one rate for electronic delivery. With electronic delivery, this rate would need to cover potential use, which I would think, by default, would include anything a computer might do with it (aside from making illegal copies and distributing them) like display for reading OR having the computer read it to you.
That's the key here: authors and publishers need to decide which media will canibalize what other revenues and price accordingly. It's not Kindle's problem as long as they're up front with publishers about what the platform will do. And the natural response from publishers should be "Well we just don't offer this one on Kindle."
I'd think a closed-end channel like this would be infinitely more appealing to publishers than straight audiobooks simply because a copy is worthless without the player. MP3 rips of audiobooks can be played anywhere these days, and I'd be much more worried about portability and potential lost revenue there than within a community willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a reader device. I'd have a lot more sympathy for writers if the Kindle suddenly created MP3 files or something, but the requirement of a player really limits the damage a single copy can do to overall sales.
It's just a case of people seeing a chance to wring out another few cents from a deal, and using a willingness to be dogs in the manger as leverage. It's small minded and disappointing. Yuck.
[font="Arial"]Are you lost daddy? I asked tenderly.
Shut up he explained.[/font]
- Ring Lardner
May 14, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not intimately familiar with copyright law, but it seems to me that it is right to pay the author (publishers, distributors, etc.) for the right to enjoy/use their material. What's the difference if you use a different sense (i.e. use the ears as opposed to the eyes) to convey the author's information to your brain? Isn't that the final point of purchasing a book?
If you think about it, the primary interface to the person is a text display designed conduct information to the brain through the eyes. The secondary interface is an aural interface designed to conduct the same exact information to the brain through the ears. The quality and originality of the information has not changed. Only the conveyance.
I have a Kindle 1 and have pre-ordered a Kindle DX. It's not for everyone, but I love the device. I don't see it as a replacement for books, but more like a service such as movies theaters, plays, restaurants, sporting events, amusement parks, take your pick as long as its experiential. Once you've exhausted the experience, what you have is memories (and sometimes photos/videos). You can't give anyone of copy of your experience when you're finished with it, but you can relate to them what you experienced. If they would like to experience it also, they can pay the price and experience it. However, if you compare the cost per hour for the enjoyment for each of these services, the Kindle comes out competitive (and is probably cheaper than a good number of them). One other thing with the Kindle is that you can repeat the experience as many times as you wish.
Just out of curiosity; what if in the future the Kindle "3" gets text to braille...
May 14, 2009 at 1:52 pm
cherylf (5/14/2009)
webrunner (5/14/2009)
...that the text-to-speech feature has the potential to render audiobooks obsolete. Although I think at the present time, the market may see people decide whether they like the sound of the Kindle "voice" enough to forgo paying for a human-performed audiobook....My prediction, for what it's worth, which is not much, is that text-to-speech will no more replace audiobooks than audiobooks have replaced books. Remember the ruckus when audiobooks first arrived on the scene? Some things is life just can't be replicated. I can foresee advances in text-to-speech technology, but never to the degree that it could replace the human voice and all of it's natural qualities.
There are electronic candles available that produce pleasant aroma, but, you know, they just don't beat the real thing.
On a different note, text-to-speech technology reaches far beyond Kindle. There are tons of freeware products available and even the text-to-speech functionality available in Adobe Acrobat isn't that bad. This technology is being widely incorporated into k-12 and Higher Education. It's a technology and copyright issue, but it's also an accessibility issue.
Thanks for that viewpoint, which ironically did not occur to me at first. Ironic because I am a person who is a "fairweather" ebook reader - they seem so convenient and appealing in principle, yet I still find myself buying paper books because of the new book smell, the feel of the paper, the ability to underline in my own hand, no need to plug in or recharge anything in, etc. I imagine there are other people who feel the same way about paper books, and certainly who have their own feelings regarding audiobooks. I personally don't use audiobooks that much.
The one possible difference with text-to-speech is that whereas paper books and audiobooks are in different formats, audiobooks and text-to-speech are more or less the same format. And whereas paper books and audiobooks cost money, the possibility that text-to-speech would be made free (based on a legal ruling) might tip the balance. In other words, although the human voice is certainly going to be a strong factor in keeping some people buying audiobooks, the barrier to switching doesn't seem as high if customers are presented with a free, albeit less aesthetically satisfying, alternative.
But again, maybe as before there will be a lot of hype but few actual converts. We'll see.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
May 15, 2009 at 9:17 am
Sorry Steve, I agree with your wife! Just because you have purchased a book in Kindle-format, that doesn't convey a right to you to also own the audio-format; in just the same way that owning the Kindle-format doesn't convey a right to have the printed-form.
Just because technology enables something to occur, doesn't necessarily give you the legal right to do it.
I do agree that a certain amount of common-sense has been lost here, but we've lived with it for years with the Performing Rights legislations for music.
Admittedly, I think DRM on music, DVDs, etc, is a completely mess, and let's hope that books don't go the same route. Maybe, soon, you will end up buying a book where you, and only you, have the right to read it!
Andy
May 15, 2009 at 9:34 am
My 3 cents. I don't agree. I should not have to pay more for a Kindle format ebook just to use the Kindle's text to speech capability. It is not the same as an audio book. If the new Kindle has the ability to take the written word in the Kindle format ebook and convert it to speech, it is a convenience. I could be reading a book, and then when I get in the car, I set the Kindle to continue reading the book to me so I continue to "read" it while driving instead of listening to radio.
It may not be the same to me as actually reading it, but at least I will still be getting the content.
I don't own a Kindle, nor have I really looked at looking at one at this time.
May 15, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I does not even matter if a recording is made or not so long as I never sell multiple copies of the book (essentially passing it off as my work).
If I buy a book - say a normal bound book - and I slice it apart and feed it into my Rabid Robot Reader 3000 (that I built in my garage) and it turns it into an 8-track cassette that I can listen to on my state of the are stereo in my truck on the way to work - that is my right because I BOUGHT IT.
Its common sense folks. There is no sperate performance - although if I switch to GEICO and use the money I save to hire James Earl Jones to read my book to me - or even onto a cassette or computer file *so that I can listen* to it - I have that right as well - I BOUGHT IT.
What I can't do is resell my awesome J.E. Jones recording - but my mother loves his voice (who doesn't?) so I can *give* her a copy to listen to. Like sharing a - well - book or magazine.
I don't know why this is still being argued - the Supreme Court ruled twice in the 80s and 90s
Its fair use
Authors, artists, etc. aren't the only ones with ownership rights - we the people who buy the products have *ahem* property rights to.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program...
May 26, 2009 at 4:15 am
If only life were as simple as you suggest! For example, I know for a fact that in the UK it is ILLEGAL to rip a music CD onto your harddrive/MP3 player, even if only for personal use.
Now, everyone thinks and knows this to be stupid. The law is widely ignored, and the chances of ever being prosecuted are essentially zero, but that does not change the strict legal position.
I know the US has different laws, in part based around "fair use"; other countries have very different laws - for example Germany allows you to copy a music CD and give it to 4 additional people! At least, that is my interpretation, please correct me if you know better....
Remember, you do NOT own the music, you have simple purchased a right to listen to it. Books have been around for much longer, and there is long tradition of lending books, reselling second hand books, etc. Photocopying of pages from a book has been tolerated in the past, but is probably illegal. And with the new electronic formats, where the act of copying an entire book is trivially easy, the concept of ownership of a book will become a bigger issue.
Andy
May 26, 2009 at 8:26 am
It's a weird issue. You do own the physical copy of the music. The murkiness comes because for a long time, when these laws were written, it was hard to copy music. And it was hard to tell that you had.
We've always had the ability to copy books, even if it were quill and ink, but it wasn't easy.
When music came, and physically was able to be copied with cassettes, it seemed that you were allowed to create that "mix tape" for your personal use and that your blank cassettes carried a tax to help compensate artists.
Now I think we need to rewrite these laws to handle digital goods, when a copy is a perfect imitation of the original. In my mind, I ought to be able to
- make copies for myself
- transform the format of these copies for delivery to myself. Make the text bigger, put the music to audio, or even have something that grabs words out of the audio and puts them on the screen for me.
As long as I use these personally, for myself or backup, I ought to be able to do this. I don't agree with "sharing" of music that happens with Limewire. As far as I'm concerned ,that is theft.
May 26, 2009 at 9:32 am
Steve Jones - Editor (5/26/2009)
...We've always had the ability to copy books, even if it were quill and ink, but it wasn't easy.
...
Now I think we need to rewrite these laws to handle digital goods, when a copy is a perfect imitation of the original. In my mind, I ought to be able to
...
As long as I use these personally, for myself or backup, I ought to be able to do this. I don't agree with "sharing" of music that happens with Limewire. As far as I'm concerned ,that is theft.
Physical difficulties aside. I agree that there were limitations that made stealing protected works very difficult in the past. But unless I'm mistaken they tried to rewrite the laws. The law, of course, is very unpopular because it enforces the rights of the author and publisher.
But I feel it is a much larger issue than simply enforcement. Society today believes in a justifiable breaking of law. That is to say; it is Ok to break the law if you intent is pure. For example Robin Hood. He stole from the rich to give to the poor. Was he a thief? Yes. Was his intent pure? Somewhat if you've actually read the books. Was he responsible for his crimes? Yes. Did he accept his guilt? Yes. When King Richard returned he placed Robin Hood freedom in the hands of his king. Everyone knows that King Richard pardoned Robin Hood. It is a case by case basis.
Nowadays people believe that any inconvenience is satisfactory to justify theft. I hear all the time, "I should to be able to..." you can fill in the blank. Obeying the copyright laws are an inconvenience (most laws are). That is because in this specific area, a good law limits our actions when it interferes with another's rights (this, of course, is defined by one's governmental structure). But, for the most part, this is how it works in the United States.
Many people today seem to think that they should never be inconvenienced. Since inconvenience is similar to unhappy, and unhappy is what those poor peasants were with Robin Hood, then any law that causes inconvenience is unjust and can therefore can be bent, stretched or even directly broken. Many Hollywood blockbusters agree with this sentiment.
People will attempt redefinition to get around anything they don't want to follow. For example, the term "stealing" has been replaced with "sharing". After all it is not illegal to share a file, right? It sounds harmless enough: bits stored on a disc. Why is everyone so upset?
I agree with you Steve. When we purchase the rights to a protected work, we should be allowed to use it in any way that benefits us (the purchaser) and us alone and the intent of the creator of the work. (For example children's books are designed for the purchaser to read to their children. This benefits someone other than the purchaser, but still fits within the creator's vision and is Ok.) If someone else wants the benefit of the protected work, then they can purchase it also. I don't believe that a computer "reading" a protected document necessarily constitutes theft. However if you use the computer to "read" a protected document to a large group of people, then others are benefiting from a protected work without due compensation.
Any laws in this area will be complex, and I doubt will be very popular.
May 26, 2009 at 10:27 am
I'm sorry, but maybe I am missing something fundamental here.
Where is the lost revenue? If someone is going to purchase the audio version of the book, why would they also purchase the book in another format?
Either way, a sale is made for either the audio version, the printed version or the kindle version. The kindle version is less expensive than the audio version and the audio version is more expensive than the printed version - so could that be the motivating factor?
It just seems to me that certain authors think they are losing money because the kindle version is bought instead of the audio version. Really, let's gouge the people that need the most help and can benefit a lot more from a less expensive version.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply