tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post6486386534360814813..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: New Kindle's 'Read-to-Me' feature: copyright problems ahead?Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-72389879298401047452009-03-04T15:18:00.000-08:002009-03-04T15:18:00.000-08:00Great analysis. A couple quick points about Amazo...Great analysis. A couple quick points about Amazon's likely defense to a claim that Kindle 2 violates performance rights:<BR/><BR/>If for some reason Amazon is unable to show that the Kindle 2 "performances" are private rather than public, the Cablevision case won't be much help in combatting a claim of indirect infringement. By stipulation of the parties, that case only dealt with direct infringement, so the holding that the users of the Cablevision system (rather than Cablevision itself) were responsible for making copies when they pressed the record button on their cable/DVR set top boxes won't shield Amazon from a claim based on inducement or contributory infringement. <BR/><BR/>That said, I can't see how a Kindle 2 "performance" made in the course of the normal and intended use of the device could possibly be seen as public. Assuming the user of the device is the one responsible for the performance, the text-to-speech feature would surely be capable of substantial non-infringing (e.g., non-public) uses, and I can't imagine Amazon is doing anything to induce Kindle 2 users to make public use of the text-to-speech feature.Jack Schecterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15105203231066237319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-57062624362943078642009-02-12T11:12:00.000-08:002009-02-12T11:12:00.000-08:00Legal issues aside, which I am finding interesting...Legal issues aside, which I am finding interesting, and societal benefit issues aside (book access for the blind etc.), one wonders if Amazon couldn't create some kind of blanket "read-to-me" fee for the book. Something in the realm of $0.49 to $0.99 for each book sold to compensate the authors for the use of the read to me function.<BR/><BR/>One might also add that the establishment of a read-to-me "add on" might help them establish the cost of a read-to-me "only" offering that they could make available for those who have various sight related issues.<BR/><BR/>There are some pretty interesting legal issues here, and I look forward to reading more about them as they develop, but I think that this is an opportune time for Amazon to beat feet to make an issue moot while simultaneously building the foundation for a better relationship with their customers.Christian Lindkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078403387362505754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-68189256050032481122009-02-10T23:36:00.000-08:002009-02-10T23:36:00.000-08:00All we know of Aiken's position is the short quote...All we know of Aiken's position is the short quote from the WSJ article: "They [Amazon] don't have the right to read a book out loud.... That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law." I'm sure that quote was part of a longer interview, and it's unfair to say that the portion the WSJ reporter (or editor) chose to use represents the sum total of Aiken's thoughts. Given that you now say you know what he meant, it's silly to write as if he's making some blanket statement about reading aloud, which he clearly wasn't.<BR/><BR/>To dismiss the Cablevision case as just a matter of "common sense" is to ignore what a doctrinally difficult case it is, especially as to the boundaries between primary and secondary liability. A very respected District Court judge heard evidence over several days of a summary judgment hearing and then wrote a detailed opinion ruling for the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed in another very detailed, 44-page opinion. Now, at the Supreme Court, the justices think it's such a difficult case that they've asked the Justice Department to weigh in on whether the Court should hear the case. There are smart, reasonable people on both sides of this one, and the courts are struggling to come to the right conclusion based on the statute and case law -- it's not simply a matter of applying someone's version of "common sense."Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-51551760284555577312009-02-10T22:59:00.000-08:002009-02-10T22:59:00.000-08:00I agree what he probably *meant* but you are readi...I agree what he probably *meant* but you are reading into his meaning. I was commenting on what he actually SAID, which is that there is no right to read aloud.<BR/><BR/>But, other than that I actually agree with your legal analysis. The Cablevision case could have a pretty big impact on something like this -- which actually highlights how ridiculous the claims are on the studios side in that case. In both the Cablevision case and in this situation, if your friends in the entertainment industry get what they want, it'll pretty much go against the most basic common sense out there.<BR/><BR/>But, I guess that's not so surprising.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-43874293675495075132009-02-10T20:48:00.000-08:002009-02-10T20:48:00.000-08:00thx I really liked how well this was written. I kn...thx I really liked how well this was written. I know people who are blind, and had wondered if Kindle would leave them behind. Also, as a teaching tool for reading, if it works well, that is another good feature for adults and kids learning to read.<BR/>www.clousfamily.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com