4 ms·
I wonder how useful this feature would actually be to the average listener. I usually listen to Audible when I can't or don't want to read (e.g. walking or on
by fasicle 7y ago
I wonder how useful this feature would actually be to the average listener.
I usually listen to Audible when I can't or don't want to read (e.g. walking or on a commute).
- mft_ 7y agoIt makes me wonder what's really behind the suit. Is it that the publishers are genuinely trying to protect their copyright and earnings - to ideally make consumers pay twice for different formats of the same content? (or similar content, given audiobooks also add some value via the narrator's interpretation). As a consumer, this kinda sucks - just as it did when --in theory-- one could be sued for downloading an MP3 of a song already purchased on CD, or even for ripping the audio off the CD oneself. Or are they worried that this is Amazon's back-door route to pilot some wider usage of this technology, cleverly clothed (in this instance) within a pro-education, pro-child-literacy story?
- matwood 7y ago> It makes me wonder what's really behind the suit. I think there are a few things at play. The publishers were commoditize on the ebook switch. They are also facing more and more pressure as people question things like 'check outs' in an ebook world. Audiobooks are a growth area, and in very high demand. The publishers learned from the ebook shift, and now will go after anything that could possibly infringe.
- homologate 7y agoI don't think this is about lost sales from the small amount of people who buy both the audio-book and e-book. I think that publishers are just using this new feature to pressure Amazon into paying them more for the audio-book licensing,.