The Kindle doesn't simply do text-to-speech translation. Amazon doesn't have the right to sell these books in an open format. Nobody but the copy-holder does. What Amazon has done is, in effect, by way of it's special access to the encryption/decryption technology, made itself the exclusive source for electronic audio translation of the work. Don't you think the copy-holder should have some say about an exclusive arangement such as this?

If Amazon was selling the device, but wasn't selling the books, there wouldn't seem to be an issue. But the Kindle isn't just a device, it is also a bookstore. Can you separate the book-selling nature of the device from it's intended uses? I think that is a legit issue. But an even bigger issue specially for Amazon is that it already has agreements to sell audio versions of books, so it has contractual duties that go beyond normal copyright. It has to demonstrate good faith in executing those duties. Aren't they interfering with those contracts by, in a sense, going behind the author's back and cutting a deal directly with the readers to get essentially a very similar product?

You are saying if Amazon did the text to speech translation and put it in an mp3 file, then downloaded it to the Kindle and replayed it, it would be copyright violation. But in this specific situation there is no meaningful difference between the two. If courts find that Amazon's intent is to profit from an audio version of the work for which knows it hasn't obtained proper rights, the technique Amazon uses to get around the law will not matter.

The law is practical. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Yes they are, that's the problem.

The argument here isn't about text-to-speech software. It is about selling an audio version of a work. Clearly Amazon is saying that a benefit of buying books through Kindle is that you get an audio version of the book too. Amazon has a contract with the copyright holder that, we both know, specifically forbids selling an audio version under the same terms.

If I am given the right to sell sheet music by a copyright holder, do I then have the right to give out recordings of my band playing the songs to people who buy the sheet music as an inducement to buy the sheet music? Doesn't that deprive the copyright holder of the right to assign that right separately?

You are missing the point that Amazon is selling the works as both text and audio when they have a contract to only sell text. That Amazon is touting the Kindles ability to translate text to audio as a reason to buy the Kindle demonstrates that Amazon thinks they are selling you something in addition to text. The authors do not a problem with the reader translating a book aloud, but they have a problem with someone they have a contract with to sell text-only versions of a work (and with whom they have separate audio version contracts) selling text plus audio versions. It is a contract issue.

I would go further and say Amazon does have a contract with the author, just one sold to them through another agent. Amazon can be conveyed no more rights than the publisher had to sell.

The key words here are "sell" and "Amazon." The article doesn't say, and the Author's Guild certainly wouldn't say, that you don't have a right to read a book out loud. They are arguing that Amazon doesn't have that right to sell one without contracting with the owner first. Does anybody here think they have a right to sell an audio performance of a book for which they don't own the copyright without the copy-holder's permission?

Amazon is clearly touting Kindles ability to turn a text book into an audio book. They obviously think they will be paid more money for that ability. Add to that the fact that Amazon already contracts with many of these authors to sell audio performances of their works. You have an established business practice between two parties to sell a valuable commodity and now one of the parties is finding a way to violate the agreement.

Remember the author is the one that owns the copyright, not Amazon, and is the own with the right to profit by their work. If Amazon finds a new way to make more money from those works they are obligated to negotiate for permission first.

Probably would have been a more powerful example if IE's tab dialog didn't also default to the verb "close."

I am the only one who noticed this story isn't even accurate anymore???? Maybe the editors could just cut and replace the company names in the headline.