I have recently read into and watched some videos on Amazon's Kindle 2. The handy reading device has taken some flack from the writer's guild for it' text to speech function, saying that it goes against audio copyrights. I would have to disagree with this agrument totally at this point in time. The Kindle may be able to read a book to you, but it lacks any human emotion, a good amount of clarity and an interesting voice.
After Watching the ad for it, I came to the thought that It was cooler before I saw it in action. The video shows an example of text to speech and I can say it would drive me nuts having to listen to a book in that manner. Currently I would say it offers no real competition to those who like their audio books and I would suggest not getting it for just that feature. And since it offers no real competition at this point, thie Writer's Guild can back off. Of course some day voice technology may become so real that it outdoes audio books, then I would imagine ppeople could make their money selling their voices as options to use in the readings, as I have seen in some GPS units.
Though I can say It would be interesting to have a Kindle but, since I do not read a whole lot, I think for the time being I would rather have a real book.
Josh
After listening to the kindle read I can agree with you that without emotion people would be less apt to want to hear the kindle read to them over audio books, so they should just back off. I would like a kindle just because it would save me having stackes of books,and it would be easier to get my hands on books I want to read, but then again I dont know if Im ready for that much technology in my house yet, I want my kids to experience the simpler things in life!
ReplyDeleteJosh,
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the Kindle looks even better after seeing the ad and I do agree with your opinion on this case, though I am not sure if you mean that the writers guild would have a case if the audio sounded more like a human voice? When voice technology is improved to the point that it sounds indistinguishable from a human voice, I wonder if there any reason people would want to pay more in order to hear a real person. If this is the case, should consumers be prohibited from the lower cost option, just because it happens to effect those who don’t offer the lower cost option? No need to respond unless you would like, I am only posing these questions.
-John Y.