Is Kindle’s Text-To-Speech a Breach of Copyright?
By Anna Johnson on February 12th, 2009Maybe it’s my legal background – or maybe it’s just growing up in a family that loved debating – but I do love a good legal argument. Although I’m not sure this IS a good legal argument…
Apparently, Paul Aiken, executive director of the U.S. Author’s Guild believes the text-to-speech feature of Amazon’s new Kindle ebook reader (version 2) is a form of copyright infringement.
He bases this on the argument that when the text-to-speech feature reads an ebook aloud it essentially creates an unauthorised derivative work in the form of an audio book.
That’s just plain wrong, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Under the U.S. Copyright Act a derivative work must of itself represent an original work of authorship. Since when did a speech synthesizer create an original work of authorship?
Just as ridiculous, according to the EFF, are other potential arguments about the Kindle’s text-to-speech feature infringing copyright. There’s no unlawful reproduction because the recording is not ‘fixed’ (i.e. it remains in Kindle’s memory for mere moments) and there’s no unlawful distribution, since the recording is not actually distributed (the underlying ebook is distributed with the author’s permission).
So it’s really a non-issue. But a somewhat interesting non-issue…
Sources: John Biggs, “Author’s Guild calls Kindle 2’s text-to-speech software illegal,” TechCrunch, February 11, 2009, Michael Kwun, “Does the Authors Guild Want to Sue You for Reading Aloud to Your Kids?” Electronic Frontier Foundation, February 11, 2009
Related Posts
- Amazon Rolls Over For Authors Guild
- Amazon To Pay 70 Percent Royalties To Kindle Ebook Authors and Publishers
- Jailbreaking iPhones, Hacking PC Video Games and Unscrambling DVD Encryption All Allowed Under U.S. Copyright Law… Sometimes
- MiMTiD Helps You Spot Online Copyright Infringement
- Google Settles Book Lawsuits For $125 Million
February 12th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Interesting. What about MIDI files? The performance of a MIDI file is not ‘fixed’ but it is covered under IP law. In this case, the e-book may be acting as an abstract code instructing the machine what to do, as a MIDI file instructs a musical instrument what to do. It certainly is functioning as a discrete work. Maybe this is a new derivative work, maybe not. IMO it should be, even if it uses some of the same process.
btw I’ve been a member of the EFF for ten years and just becuase they say something doesn’t make it correct. Like the ACLU, they take a hard, ideological line and are often completely divorced from reality.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Jason: There are several ways a MIDI file can infringe:
(1) The MIDI file itself is fixed, and can infringe the reproduction right held by copyright owner of the original composition.
(2) If publicly performed, the MIDI file can infringe the public performance right.
(3) If the MIDI file is an interpretation of the original work, but with some original choices (of, for example, phrasing and dynamics), it can infringe the right to make derivative works.
Those rights suffice to protect the owner of the copyright in the original composition. For example, if I include a MIDI version of your tune in my game, for example, I run afoul of (1), and quite likely (3). And if I then sell CDs with my game on it, I’m also infringing the distribution right.
But simply using a MIDI file in private does not independently infringe, for the same reasons that apply to the read-to-me feature of the Kindle 2.
Michael Kwun
EFF Senior Staff Attorney
February 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I should hasten to add, having just noticed that Kinkabink is based in Melbourne, Australia, that I’m applying US law in the above analysis.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 am
Maybe my comparison doesn’t hold much water, because both a book and a MIDI file are seperate products and have seperate applications that are covered under IP law. If in the case of the ebook there were two seperate computer file products, one which was for displaying text on a screen and one which was for computer generated speech, then there would be no ‘problem’. But the functions use the same file, and one of the functions was unforseen. I imagine publishers contracts will change to include different compensation. My fear is that it won’t happen that way for small publishers and independent writers who don’t have the same leverage with large corporations like Amazon.
September 12th, 2009 at 3:07 am
I found your site on google, great site, keep it up. Will return in the future. Submitted this post to Google News Reader.