A few days ago, I mentioned how the pressure was mounting on Amazon to make changes to its Read-To-Me feature on Kindle 2.0. Since the day Kindle 2.0 was introduced, a few people were making the case against Read-To-Me and its legality. It seems Amazon has finally caved in and decided to make software changes necessary to empower publishers and authors to choose if they want Read-To-Me enabled for their titles. In essence, if you are an author, and you do not like folks listening to your book on their Kindle, you can just disable the feature.

On the surface, this doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Amazon is allowing the authors to claim the audio rights for their books. And Read-To-Me still remains on Kindle 2.0.  But we have been here before with Adobe. This decision doesn’t kill Read-To-Me, but it pushes it to the brink. The audio that you hear on Kindle is very much different from what you get in a professionally made audio-book. But Amazon has decided that it does not want to deal with the legal ramifications of leaving Read-To-Me as it is. While many authors may leave the feature enabled for their readers, I suspect a lot of folks see this as an opportunity to make more money. There is nothing wrong with making money from your work, but Authors Guild decision to challenge Read-to-Me shows how our legal system hinders innovation. Instead of attacking the Kindle, maybe these guys need to focus more on providing more value with their audio-books.

Your take: did Amazon do the right thing by putting the ball in the publishers’ court? Should Amazon offer partial refunds to Kindle 2.0 owners?

Last week, we had Amazon release its second generation Kindle just to have some law experts question the legality of the “Read-To-Me” feature on Kindle 2.0. Now, I do not know whether the case against Read-To-Me is strong, but could Amazon really be forced to remove the feature? Here are a few things that our readers have to say:

Scott:

Read to me is the feature that pushed me over the edge to buy (try) the new Kindle, without it I may not have bought it just yet. I say, way to go Amazon!

Joshua K: Text to speech has been a part of Mac OS for a very long time. I don’t see how this is any difference. It takes text and reads it out loud. It doesn’t make an audio file… Anyone could use text to speech software on a computer with an e-Book file, and there its even easier to turn it into something like an mp3, so i don’t see what the issue even is.

I have to agree with Scott and Joshua. I really do not know what the big deal is here. But if you have dealt with lawyers in the past, you know they always find a way to make a case against anything and anyone. Amazon Kindle may only be a couple years old, but it has been a success for Amazon. With success, you get lawsuits. In fact, I would not be surprised if folks sued Amazon for Kindle being too thin. It would be extremely disappointing if Amazon was forced to remove the feature, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

What do you think? Would you buy Amazon Kindle 2.0 if Amazon was forced to remove Read-To-Me?

Talk about having a short honeymoon. You thought Barack Obama had a short honeymoon? Think again. Amazon Kindle 2G is already taking heat for its innovative Read-To-Me feature. I get what Jeff Bezos was trying to accomplish by adding Read-To-Me feature to Kindle 2.0. The truth is we as a people are finding new ways to consume content. We want to watch video training programs instead of reading books. We want to listen to pod-casts and audio-books instead of reading blogs and regular books. So the Read-to-Me feature is not only a great accessibility feature, but it’s also allows us to multi-task more effectively. Now you can listen to your book and check you e-mail messages at the same time.

The problem? Authors Guild. I am sure those guys want to protect the work of folks who spend so much time to develop their works, but to even suggest that Amazon’s Read-To-Me feature makes audio-books out of e-books is simply ridiculous. The book is read by a computer program and in form or shape capable of topping the quality of a professionally composed audio-book. I am sure a lot of folks want to sue Amazon and make some quick cash, but you’ve got to have a better excuse to do that. I am all for protecting the work done by authors, composers, musicians, and everyone in between, but sometimes these silly laws get in the way of innovation. For ours and Amazon’s sakes, let’s hope there is no hefty lawsuit in the horizon.

What do you think? Who’s on the right side here?