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 257: Lisa Given on What Canada Can Learn From Australia’s Youth Social Media Ban
byMichael 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
December 22, 2025
Michael Geist
December 8, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 257: Lisa Given on What Canada Can Learn From Australia’s Youth Social Media Ban
Court Ordered Social Media Site Blocking Coming to Canada?: Trojan Horse Online Harms Bill Clears Senate Committee Review
An Illusion of Consensus: What the Government Isn’t Saying About the Results of its AI Consultation
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act’s Private Right of Access
Government Says There Are No Plans for National Digital ID To Access Services

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.