"Copyright is copyright."

Well, that is a lot of bunk. Here, you have words fixed on software and a screen being turned into another medium - audio - which is not fixed.

I think that Amazon has a possible Fair Use claim because of how transformative the device makes the new work (the "spoken words").

It'll be interesting to see, but it certainly is just more than "Copyright is copyright."

I just got back from this demonstration at the Authors Guild. I thought it was a terrific and effective 'performance' (music, talks, chants, etc.). I'd estimate the crowd at several hundred. I had planned on staying for only a few minutes, but I ended up being there for the two hours, because I was so entertained. There were a lot of speakers from all the different organizations, but they each spoke for only a minute or two and then the music and chanting continued. Most (although not all) of the speakers were sight-impaired in some way. Maybe that partially explains why they were such good speakers. They have learned to use their voices so effectively.

The overall message was NOT "Poor us; we want to listen to your books." Instead, it was more like: "We demand access to ebooks, and we won't stop until we get it. We're a big part of the market, and YOU need our business." I was very impressed by that positive, confident, businesslike attitude.

In the flyer provided at the demonstration, twenty-five organizations are listed as part of the Reading Rights Coalition. Although a number of them specifically relate to blindness, a number of them don't; for example, the International Dyslexia Association and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. It made me realize how many people really NEED the text-to-speech feature for ebooks.

I'm looking at the first two lines on the flyer: "No Need for Greed; We want to Read!" I think this is a no-win situation for the Authors Guild. They might as well wave the flag of surrender right now.

perhaps there should be an option to buy the book without audio and then buy the book with audio and charge a little more for the audio. perhaps give the disabled a discount or have a discount program...

So let me make sure I understand: We're taking a copyright-enforced stream of text using our own equipment to convert that stream into the specific format we want to use, and the author's guild is saying that we're not allowed?

I've got a simple text-to-speech program on my computer. Are you trying to tell me that if I purchase an e-book, I am not permitted to pipe that book through this program?

Am I allowed to change the font size? Am I allowed to display it on a different screen? Am I allowed to hand the device to my spouse and have her read the book to me?

The format they used to release the book is intended to be converted into a human-understandable format by a device I own. Who has the right to tell me what device I am allowed to use to make that conversion?

It is this kind of thinking that has caused P2P filesharing to dominate the market for music and video. By opposing a consumer's right to use the so-called "property" he has purchased, the author's guild places themselves at a disadvantage, alienating themselves from potential customers.