On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Jason Olshefsky <[email protected]>wrote:
> > [snip] > That said, I think it's reasonable to have a separate license for a > performance by a particular reader: human or machine. If Kindle's > reader is just reading the plain text, then it falls under the plain > text license I mentioned above. If it encodes additional information > beyond plain text, then it's a performance that deserves a different > license. [snip] I was with you before reading the entire article and considering Blount's points. The strongest point, that he made implicitly, is that authors will lose royalties from audio versions of the text because the Kindle is being specifically marketed for its relatively pleasant text-to-speech function, and readers/listeners are more likely to purchase Kindle versions that can be both read and spoken rather than purchase audio versions. So, an additional question is whether the argument would be valid if Amazon weren't marketing the feature so heavily. I would say the argument is still valid if it became well known that the feature was there, but the argument is not as strong. Yet another questions is whether operating systems will get good enough at text-to-speech that audio version sales suffer. This one is thornier, in my eyes (OUCH). It will have to wait for another day since I'm already behind schedule and need to get at least 10 billable hours in today. :-| -- Dave Henn [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
