Publishers Allege Copyright Infringement Against Audible Over New Audiobook Feature
That feature, called Audible Captions, is being challenged over copyright infringement by the publishers, who claim Audible is unlawfully reproducing the work of authors without permission.
August 23, 2019 at 04:54 PM
5 minute read
A coalition of publishers is suing Audible, the Amazon-owned audiobook company, over a new feature announced last month that will display the text of a book to listeners while it's read to them by their device.
That feature, called Audible Captions, is being challenged over copyright infringement by the publishers, who claim Audible is unlawfully reproducing the work of authors without permission.
The lawsuit was brought Friday by the Association of American Publishers, which is represented in the litigation by Kirkland & Ellis. Maria Pallante, the group's president, said they chose to sue Audible after the company declined to address their concerns over the feature.
"In what can only be described as an effort to seek commercial advantage from literary works that it did not create and does not own, Audible is willfully pushing a product that is unauthorized, interferes and competes with established markets, and is vulnerable to grammatical and spelling inaccuracies," Pallante said. "It is a disservice to everyone affected, including readers."
Audible responded to the lawsuit in a statement by saying they were surprised by the implication that they haven't been speaking to publishers about the feature, which hasn't yet launched.
"We disagree with the claims that this violates any rights and look forward to working with publishers and members of the professional creative community to help them better understand the educational and accessibility benefits of this innovation," the statement from Audible said.
Attorneys for the publishers argued in the lawsuit that the new feature will infringe on their rights by allowing users to read along with the narrator without purchasing the text version of the book. Other features from Audible, which allow users to either read along with the narrator, or switch to a text-only version of the book, require a purchase of both the audiobook and the digital book.
The new feature is different. Audible Captions will display the text to users in real time while it's being read to them. The text will also be generated based on transcription technology from Audible, which the publishers say is far from perfect.
Audible has conceded as much to publishers, according to the lawsuit. Up to 6% of the text could include errors, such as transcribing the Yiddish phrase "mazel tov" as "mazel tough," the lawsuit said.
That's one of three reasons the publishers argued they would experience irreparable harm if Audible rolls out the new feature.
They argued that authors and publishers invest time and financial resources to ensure the quality of their work is presented to readers as it's written, free of errors. Having a feature that may display text that doesn't mirror what publishers or authors intended would devalue their reputation, the suit argued.
"The Distributed Text contains extensive errors that, of course, are not approved by the Works' authors or Publishers, and does not reflect Publishers' desired presentation," the lawsuit said.
It would also create a mechanism in which the new feature from Audible is directly competing with the product of publishers, both in digital and print form. Readers could see it as a replacement for the other features from Audible, which require users to purchase both the audiobook and a digital version of the book.
"Audible Captions, by contrast, does not require the purchase of an eBook, misappropriating the right to distribute text and depriving authors and Publishers compensation for distribution of their written works thereby lessening their incentive and ability to create and publish works for consumers," the lawsuit said. "It is hard to compete with free."
That leads into the third cause of harm alleged by the publishers, who claim the new feature would devalue the price point of their product. Consumers will no longer see the value in purchasing the physical or digital version of a book if they can read along with the audiobook for free, the publishers argued.
"The Copyright Act entitles Publishers and their authors to receive compensation for the text of Works, and Audible's infringement will cause them to lose unquantifiable revenues and good will and provide consumers with less incentive to participate in the properly authorized Audible Immersion market," the lawsuit said.
Audible Immersion is one of the features already authorized by the company. It allows users to read along with the text of a book while it's narrated, but requires a purchase of both products. Attorneys on the suit included photos of that and the new feature, which they've alleged will appear "remarkably similar" to users.
Along with the lawsuit Friday, attorneys for the publishers requested a hearing for a preliminary injunction against the feature. That hearing is scheduled for Sept. 5.
Seven publishers are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including Chronicle Books, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishing Group, Penguin Random House, Scholastic, and Simon & Schuster.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trying a Case for Abu Ghraib Detainees Two Decades After Abuse
- 2The Distribution of Dangerous Products Via Online Marketplaces
- 3The Products Liability Case Against Tianeptine: The Deadly ‘Dietary Supplement’ Found at Your Local Store
- 4The Evolving Landscape of Joint and Several Liability in Pa.: A Post-'Spencer' Analysis
- 5A Deep Dive Into the Product-Line Exception in Pennsylvania
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250