Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Kindle Swindle?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#21

Post by tptacek »

jhickner wrote: post #6

If I buy a book, I can freely record myself reading it. I then have an audio book. I own the book I bought, so recording myself (or anyone else) reading it is completely within my rights. If I suddenly don't need to record myself, because technology reaches a point where a piece of software can read my book just as well as I can, then that's just the way it is. If a temporary inconvenience creates a business opportun…

You cannot redistribute the audio recording you created of yourself reading the book.

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#22

Post by Retric »

Tichy wrote: post #13
witten wrote: post #4

I'm sympathetic to the plight of the starving (or even well-fed) writer wanting to get paid for their work. But the opinion espoused in this piece is the classic argument that just because an industry has grown accustomed to a particular revenue stream or business model, they should therefore always and forever have the privilege of keeping it. And anyone who introduces products or technology to prevent that or cut i…

Also, isn't reading on a kindle also like a movie? At least when you scroll, the text is moving across the screen. So I think Amazon should also pay for the movie rights.

I don't think the refresh rate is fast enough to "scroll".

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#23

Post by ajb »

You work for six months or a year building up your product, for no pay. A startup founder - or an unpublished author.

What most tech types don't realize is how much risk there is already in the writers profession. These are not fat-cat music executives. They don't have anything like as much chance of becoming rich as a founder of a startup. Heck, most don't even make a living, and have to keep the day job; even once they get published and get advances on later books. And if one book tanks, they're back to square one.

That's why they don't like change. They are already drowning in risk, and people are saying they should take on some more?

I don't buy the idea that text-to-speech is infringement, personally. But it's too easy to say that authors should just 'change their business model'. How?

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#24

Post by rationalbeaver »

RK wrote: post #9

For the record: no, the Authors Guild does not expect royalties from anybody doing non-commercial performances of "Goodnight Moon." If parents want to send their children off to bed with the voice of Kindle 2, however, it’s another matter. I really don't follow his logic here. I think the fundamental question is "what is a performance?". I just find it hard to see that kindle reading = voice actor reading. Why go to…

It seems that Amazon would agree with that assessment, since they own Audible.com, the web's biggest audio book seller. One would imagine that if they thought the kindle's reading feature would infringe upon/destroy the audio book business, they wouldn't have given it the green light.

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#25

Post by jbrun »

ajb wrote: post #23

You work for six months or a year building up your product, for no pay. A startup founder - or an unpublished author. What most tech types don't realize is how much risk there is already in the writers profession. These are not fat-cat music executives. They don't have anything like as much chance of becoming rich as a founder of a startup. Heck, most don't even make a living, and have to keep the day job; even once…

"They don't have anything like as much chance of becoming rich as a founder of a startup."

Have you ever looked at the revenues for a best selling author? They very much a have a small chance of hitting it big. They should change their business model by offering interesting things like McSweeney's which uses both online and offline products to attract an audience.

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#26

Post by far33d »

For a text-to-speech system to be as good as the standard audiobook, it would require the software actually understand the material and give each line the correct emotion and cadence it deserves. I find that words spoken at monotone or at a pace inappropriate to the content go right through me.

The audiobook is a performance and as a performance, deserves additional rights and royalties.

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#27

Post by brlewis »

sethg wrote: post #18
witten wrote: post #4

I'm sympathetic to the plight of the starving (or even well-fed) writer wanting to get paid for their work. But the opinion espoused in this piece is the classic argument that just because an industry has grown accustomed to a particular revenue stream or business model, they should therefore always and forever have the privilege of keeping it. And anyone who introduces products or technology to prevent that or cut i…

This is not his argument. Separate revenue streams for audio books is not just a quaint custom in the publishing world, but a consequence of copyright law, which treats text and audio rights as properties that may be licensed separately. He's arguing that his constituents' property is being taken from them without their consent. I think his case is weak, but it's not dumb.

More precisely it treats text and audio as distinct works which must be licensed individually. I wrote a lot about this at http://ourdoings.com/ourdoings-startup/2009-02-11

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#28

Post by inklesspen »

tptacek wrote: post #21
jhickner wrote: post #6

If I buy a book, I can freely record myself reading it. I then have an audio book. I own the book I bought, so recording myself (or anyone else) reading it is completely within my rights. If I suddenly don't need to record myself, because technology reaches a point where a piece of software can read my book just as well as I can, then that's just the way it is. If a temporary inconvenience creates a business opportun…

You cannot redistribute the audio recording you created of yourself reading the book.

And you cannot redistribute the audio recording the Kindle makes on the fly.

No audio book is being distributed by Amazon. An ebook is being distributed by Amazon.

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#29

Post by wavesplash »

sethg wrote: post #18
witten wrote: post #4

I'm sympathetic to the plight of the starving (or even well-fed) writer wanting to get paid for their work. But the opinion espoused in this piece is the classic argument that just because an industry has grown accustomed to a particular revenue stream or business model, they should therefore always and forever have the privilege of keeping it. And anyone who introduces products or technology to prevent that or cut i…

This is not his argument. Separate revenue streams for audio books is not just a quaint custom in the publishing world, but a consequence of copyright law, which treats text and audio rights as properties that may be licensed separately. He's arguing that his constituents' property is being taken from them without their consent. I think his case is weak, but it's not dumb.

There isn't an 'audio right' in copyright law. The author is trying to justify the loss of an established contractual norm for a sold derivative work (a professionally produced reading) by expanding the notion of copyright. The author is confusing contract rights with copyright. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html

Re: The Kindle Swindle?

#30

Post by greyman »

eli wrote: post #19
greyman wrote: post #5

He is ridiculous. I can do anything legal with the purchased file, that's my basic right as a customer.

No you can't. Maybe that's the way it should be , but you certainly can't read that book to an audience or crack the DRM and print out copies for your friends.

I know, but I wrote "anything legal". Reading the book to an audience might not be legal, but running it through the reading software at my home certainly is not illegal.
Post reply on HN