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 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
byMichael Geist

May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
May 4, 2026
Michael Geist
April 27, 2026
Michael Geist
Ep. 265 – Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
April 20, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests
Make It Make Sense: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Plan
Why Social Media and AI Chatbot Bans for Kids Are Bad Policy: Making the Case at the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Tech Committee

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.