Amazon has caved to pressure from the Authors Guild, who indicated that it might sue over the text-to-speech technology in the Kindle. Amazon maintained that the feature was legal, but presumably dropped the feature for business reasons.
Amazon Caves on Kindle
March 1, 2009
Share this post
3 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police
byMichael Geist

March 2, 2026
Michael Geist
February 23, 2026
Michael Geist
February 9, 2026
Michael Geist
Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act's Private Right of Access
February 2, 2026
Michael Geist
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 255: Grappling with Grok – Heidi Tworek on the Limits of Canadian Law
January 26, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 260: What the Government Didn’t Want You To Hear About Bill C-4 And Its Weak Political Party Privacy Rules
Why the Online Harms Act is the Wrong Way to Regulate AI Chatbots
More Transparency Not Police Reporting: Navigating the Safety-Privacy Balance for AI ChatBots
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police
Nobody Wants This: Senate Rejects Government’s Anti-Privacy Plan for Political Parties By Sending Bill Back to the House With a Sunset Clause

Ficticious copyright violation?
The BOOK is the “product” that is copyrighted.
Any audio package for such a book would be directly DERIVED FROM that book, and should only be considered “reading” the work. It’s not a “sound track”, in the “movie” or “music” sense, and the book is complete without it.
It’s utter nonsense that someone can/would claim “copyright” over the very ACT of reading anything, as such a copyright could make ANY reading of a book “illegal”.
What would that mean for schools??
Reading a book, and even recording that reading can’t possibly constitute “copying” the product itself.
This is madness.
The practice of copyright itself needs to die.
>sigh
I realize one shouldn’t “feel sorry” for people with vision impairments, but it seems the blind are the collateral damage here. Exemptions don’t mean **** if the feature gets pulled before market.
Not like that impacts Canadians anyway.
CNIB should sue…
For discrimination.