UPDATED: Kindles and Tropicana and Bell: OH MY!

Note: This week Amazon said that they would suspend the Text-To-Speach function and that descision on activation would be made the at publisher's level. 

Certain online pundits, however, continue to call the Guild whiners. These pundits are wilfully missing the point: The issue is not what the system can do now, but what it may be capable of and making sure that this does not rob authors of any moneys that are owed to them. 

We also find it interesting that many of the pundits wonder why someone would buy an audiobook and an e-text, when they themselves have mentioned that they do the very same thing. 

Three two stories caught our eye this week:

1. Authors Guild claims Kindle 2 Text-to-Speech feature will impact audiobook market
2. Tropicana changes packaging back to original design due to consumer outcry
3. Bell charges for SMS Tweets
   

All three of these have something in common: they are a result of people seeing a change and reacting to it. All three are about protecting the way things are from the way things could be. All three also represent a shift that is going on due to the prevalence of electronic communication.

For the third one, there has been a detente reached in that Twitter based SMSs will be counted as part of any texting plan that might be had with Bell. Out thoughts on the story in general can be found here.

The first has to do with a feature on Amazon's new Kindle e-book reader, which is available only in the US (I've yet to see one in Canada: you'd think THIS would be something that someone would have jailbroken). One feature will have the text read to you in what is currently a very dry robotic voice, but we expect this to improve over time.

So does the Author's Guild, which is pondering legal action saying that this means that Amazon would be selling a print AND audiobook for the price of the print book, and the author would not get any of the royalties they would get from audiobooks. They claim that someone could download the book, run it through the text-to-speech reader and have an audiobook. This leads to a situation where Amazon is technically selling two version of a book, but only paying the author for one version.

The Author's Guild is doing one very smart thing here: they are not saying this is the case right now, but they are arguing that it could lead there and so are pondering preemptive action. We at The Times agree with this, as it's what our mission is all about: Taking a second look at the impact of technology and looking for not-so-obvious places where it's going to make an impact.

As always, the Libertarian wing of the Internet is up in arms over their planned action. Message boards on Engadget have comments about how the Guild does not understand the Internet and computers, and how if someone has bought a book it's up to them to decide how they want to consume it, and that the world should be moving past the model it uses now.

While we agree that copyright does need to be revisited in this day and age, we don't think junking it completely is the way to go. For example, we write The Times and never see a dime for it, even with advertising. We're in the hole on this. We are lucky to have a full time job to let us support our family. We also used to write for a magazine many moons ago, and saw not much more than a dime for it. Writers, musicians etc might seem to have a glamorous life, but on average we don't make a lot of money. So yes, we are going to be protective of those sources of income. John McCrea of CAKE put it best: Information wants to be free, but rent wants to be paid.

It's all find and dandy to say that "I've bought something and that means that I should be able to make copies X, Y, and Z of it," and we support that idea in principle. We'd love to live like we all exist in a post-scarcity world. It's very easy for certain people to advocate that when their own means of living do not define scarcity and given then a channel for broadcasting their views. But to think that owning a copy of someone's work gives you free range to do whatever you want with it at all is absurd, or at least should be not be said with a big ol' "IDEALLY" slapped in front of it. If you feel that moving to that model is something that is inevitable, then get ready for your iPod, Kindle, and Twitter feed looking like a NASCAR, because there are going to be ads everywhere, because that rent is always going to want to be paid.

Also, the Kindle has a whole lot of other issues that really impact how books are treated and licensed, so people should not think that the Kindle means there is a great opening of the industry. There is a very good argument for the opposite in fact.

-- Breathe

Tropicana: They recently released a new version of their packaging, like all Pepsi products have. There was a great hue and cry about the change, online mobilization to boycott the product, and as a result PepsiCo have gone back to their traditional design.

We agree that the packaging is not lovely, but there is something about it we do like. There is also something we love more than packaging: What is INSIDE the packaging. We love its sweet fresh taste, especially right out of the fridge first thing in the morning. Mmm that's good stuff. And you know what we do when we drink it? We put it in the glass. BUT WAIT...if we put it in a glass, it won't have the same packaging. Why won't Tropicana issue a glass with each carton, since the design is such a crucial element to the enjoyment of our orange juice, so much so that many people said they would not buy the product until the classic package is returned?

We know we're being silly here, but everyone is being silly in this:

1. If you like a product, buy it. If your enjoyment of the product is tainted because it doesn't evoke every memory you had as a child, or because the font is sans serif, then you don't really like the product.
2. If you're going to redesign a product, launch it in a few small test markets first and see how well it takes. If people are not buying your product because it looks like something else and they can't make the connection, then go back to the drawing board.
3. If it passes your tests and you roll it out, stand by your convictions at least. Don't fold right away. Communicate, educate, explain to your customers that the same experience they are paying for will exist. If they love the product, they will continue to purchase it. If not, then you are built on an empire of sand.

This is a prime example of The Poochie Paradox: Wanting to have everything be cutting edge, but complaining when something trivial changes. We think that people are far too attached to the look of something that will stay in the fridge for a better part of its life. This really is cutting off your nose to spite your face if you won't buy the product that you've trusted for all the years because of the font. And shame on PepsiCo for not standing behind its designers.

But that's what's common in these stories: We understand that the customer is always right, but that does not mean that the provider or creator is always wrong. There is something disturbing going on right now, where people believe that making a purchase of a product is the same as buying a share in something. "They have to listen to me because I am a loyal customer," is good. "They must cater to my every whim, regardless of the effect it has on their company because I feel I am entitled to this because I shell over $3.99 every week," is delusional. Distressingly things appear to be heading in that direction.

We're not saying people don't have certain rights to use a product in a way that they see fit, nor that those rights as they are defined now are absolute or unalterable. What we are saying that people should consider that for every right as a consumer that they want to take back, they are taking away from not just a company, but a CREATOR. And the companies have to realize that without those creators plying their trade and being compenated for them, they would not have anything to market.

It's not good guys. It's not bad guys. In the end, it's just a lot of guys.