For a blind person (many of whom don’t know braille), an audio book, even one poorly read, might be the only access they have to the material.

In contrast, the vast majority of sighted people choose audio books for reasons other than pure access to the material. They might want something on their drive to work (so probably not a Kindle there), or to listen to for pleasure (again, the relatively poor quality might impact their choice)… While I certainly grant that some might choose TTS over an audio book, I doubt many would unless they saw the audio book as an extravagent expense.

However, let me play devil’s advocate here. Lets imagine in the not too distant future, TTS has vastly improved to the point that it can read with the inflection and emotional depth necessary to satisfy any listener. The market for audio books has all but disappeared except for a market that remains that treats them almost like a performance. Now, granted lots of people involved in the production of audio books are out of work. However, it is possible that the publishers might actually make more money. Why? Because there are lots of people who might enjoy listening to books who don’t generally like reading, but whom have not gotten into audio books because of their greater cause.

Lets put it in simple terms. No company has ever gotten rich by fighting new technology. Even if they win against one type of technology, they will ultimately loose. Consider how the music industry essentially killed the mini-disc… great victory? Nope, just made the jump to MP3 players that much quicker when it happened.

If I were book companies, I would want to find ways to make this work for me. Get the price of audio books down, or develop your own better TTS service.

At the very least, work with Amazon to set up a system where a person can enable TTS for a small fee (say $1) on any given book.

–
Bill

By the way as an annual subscriber to audible.com you can get most any audiobook for about $12.

Its not really a question whether or not the technology is legal, my point was that, the consumer now has two choices for an audio version of the same book.

What’s ironic is that Josephs assertion that TTS is so bad no one could possibly enjoy it seems to contradict the Reading Rights Coalition’s claim that TTS is a perfectly valid way for the blind to read and that disabling it hurts the blind.

So, let me see if I have this right – TTS is so bad that sighted readers will never accept it as a substitute for audiobooks read by people, but its good enough for blind people. Is that right?

You hit the nail on the head. It is about greed, not about copyright. They don’t give a damn about the user’s rights. We’re just a revenue stream, to be milked as often as possible.

The publishers are perfectly happy to allow audio or braille editions of their books to be made available to blind people provided that some non-profit company is willing to make the effort to do it.

Of course, this means the non-profit must have the resources to do it. Good luck if you want something obscure.

Ultimately, I think this all comes down to the exact same issue as the VHS wars in the 1980s. Ultimately, Networks and Studios did not want you being able to copy their broadcasts because it infringed on their right to sell copies on tape. The Supreme Court ruled the VHS taping was legal then, and I imagine they would rule TTS as being legal now (Particularly since it being done by Amazon means it is not circumventing DRM).

This does not infringe on the right of the publishers to make and sell audio books any more than selling the book to someone with vocal chords does. That such a product might reduce the market for audio books does not mean that it infringes on the rights of the authors or publishers.

–
Bill

–
Bill

You obviously haven’t listened to a lengthy reading by TTS software.

http://www.ereads.com/richard_curtis/2009/05/e-reads-offers-book-deal-to-dick-cheney.html

A thought experiment: Lets say I download a book from Audible for $24.95. Once it is stored on my player I press a button and it ‘reads’ to me. Yes, the audio is ‘fixed’ and wont change, but I can adjust the tone quality, and the output through the speakers is transitory in the sense that any audio signal is.

Now, lets say I have a Kindle and I buy the same book for $9.95. I download it to my Kindle and press play (or whatever the TTS function is called – sorry, don’t actually have a Kindle), and it ‘reads’ to me. Yes, the text is fixed and wont change, but I can (presumably) adjust the tone quality, and the output through the speakers is transitory in the same sense as above.

Now, how are the two experiences different from the consumers perspective? For $24.95 I got a human-read audio file only, and for $9.95 I got a text file to display and a machine-read performance. If I happen to like the machine performance (and for $15 less I have an incentive to like it), I’d say the second option is a better deal – wouldn’t you?

Thanks,
David

Now, if someone make a recording of a TTS conversion and tried to sell it, then you’d have something to beef about. OTOH, I don’t think you’d find anyone dumb enough to actually buy such a lousy audiobook. Even the best commercial TTS cannot produce an audio rendiditon that comes within light years of a professionally produced audiobook.