[savanaly]

If they're not using the book text to train models (keeping the focus on this particular new Kindle feature), where's the room for objection? My device, my content, it's none of the author's business how I read it, in my view.

Edit: Given I've been a reader of HN for some time, I am perfectly aware that on Kindle you don't own the content, just a license to the content. Don't need any more people pointing this out! Lol. In my house we still call owning a license to something that is not likely to be revoked "owning it".

[Marsymars]

> My device, my content, it's none of the author's business how I read it, in my view.

In practice, that's not the case though, e.g. publishers on Kindle can choose not to allow text-to-speech assistive functionality.

[benmanns]

Audiobook publishers require/request this when you sell subsidiary rights. We’ve been able to push back citing accessibility concerns. I find it really annoying when not available for my own reading.

[Gimpei]

Couldn’t agree more. This is actually a super useful feature. I can’t think of how many times I’ve been reading a book and some minor character resurfaces and I’m like, who the hell is that guy? Now I can know. I can also get information on historical context. Who knows, maybe I can finally read Ulysses without having to have 5 other books.

[rightbyte]

> My device, my content

I am quite sure Amazon doesn't sell you that.

[freedomben]

I wish it was "my device, my content" but it absolutely isn't. If you want that you have to buy from a DRM-free source, and Kindle is the absolute opposite of that.

[bko]

What does this have to do with the parent's comment?

Okay it's not 100% my device my content, so I shouldn't be allowed to run a local AI against the text?

[dpark]

> where's the room for objection?

I suspect most of the people arguing this way would be in favor of more end user rights if we were talking about anything except the right to use AI.

“Rights good, AI bad” somehow leads to the insane argument that it’s a good thing you don’t have rights over the book you bought.

“You don’t really own the book” is a crazy argument unless the person saying this wants the locked-down DRM world where you can’t own a piece of media.

[tshaddox]

Amazon is selling digital copies (or licenses, if you like) of the books, which means they need permission from the copyright holders. This permission is likely backed by a contractual agreement that covers some details about how Amazon presents the digital copies to the end users.

(This of course wouldn't be the case if they were reselling physical books.)

[ctoth]

So what part of this presentation agreement could possibly apply?

[g947o]

Not your content, it's Amazon's content, you only purchased a license to view it, which can be revoked at any time if daddy Jeff is not happy.

And I am not being cynical. That is literally what is on their web page, e.g.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BTZT9PLM

[ceejayoz]

Fun fact: the first book Amazon remotely removed from Kindles was… 1984.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-ki...

[ctoth]

Sure. But you knew what this comment was trying to say. It is obviously saying that what happens on the Kindle is between the customer and possibly Amazon, specifically that authors should not be involved. They got their money. That part of the transaction is complete. I know you realize this, it's annoying to read the constant "not your keys not your coins" reframe.

[tiahura]

Most of it is _not_ Amazon’s content. They don’t own the book, so they can’t sell you the book. Nemo dat.

[bossyTeacher]

>My device, my content

Afaik, while the device is yours, everything else on it isn't.

[micromacrofoot]

device is hardly yours unless you jailbreak it or collect bricks

[Mouvelie]

"Amazon DID NOT answer PubLunch’s questions about “what rights the company was relying upon to execute the new feature was not answered, nor did they elaborate on the technical details of the service and any protections involved (whether to prevent against hallucinations, or to protect the text from AI training).”

[akersten]

> what rights the company was relying upon to execute the new feature

what rights does a bookstore clerk need to answer questions about a product on the store's shelves? what a presumptuous question

[catgary]

You don’t need any rights to execute the feature. The user owns the book. The app lets the user feed the book into an LLM, as is absolutely their right, and asks questions.

[thewebguyd]

> protect the text from AI training

Hasn't training been already ruled to be fair use in the recent lawsuits against Meta, Antrhopic? Ruled that works must be legally acquired, yes, but training was fair use.

[squigz]

> Edit: Given I've been a reader of HN for some time, I am perfectly aware that on Kindle you don't own the content, just a license to the content. Don't need any more people pointing this out! Lol. In my house we still call owning a license to something that is not likely to be revoked "owning it".

The amount of people completely - and likely intentionally - missing your point is both frustrating and completely unsurprising.

A quick reminder that this is part of HN's guidelines

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

[johnnyanmac]

It's not training on books, but it will answer questions about the book you're reading. Doesn't pass the sniff test.

>My device, my content

I don't think you own the kindle store and servers used to train the Ai.

[terafo]

There are LLM's that can process 1 million token context window. Amazon Nova 2 for one, even though it's definitely not the highest quality model. You just put whole book in context and make LLM answer questions about it. And given the fact that domain is pretty limited, you can just store KV cache for most popular books on SSD, eliminating quite a bit of cost.

[catgary]

Are you implying that an LLM needs to be trained on a specific piece of text to answer questions about it?

[tshaddox]

> It's not training on books, but it will answer questions about the book you're reading. Doesn't pass the sniff test.

What do you mean? Presumably the implication is that it will essentially read the book (or search through it) in order to answer questions about it. An LLM can of course summarize text that's not in its training set.

[nephihaha]

In the case of a novel, or even certain text books, the author relies on the reader not jumping ahead. Especially murder mysteries and those kind of genres. There are artistic reasons for that, and it can wreck the work.

In my experience, AI summaries often miss points or misrepresent work. There is a human element to reading a well written novel. An AI will miss some of the subtleties and references.

[squigz]

But if I want to jump ahead and read the last page of a book first, is it reasonable for an author to tell me I can't do that?

[lawlessone]

>none of the author's business how I read it, in my view.

my favorite way to eat is give other people my food, and have them tell me how it tastes and what not being hungry feels like.

or to labor the point for the people that are having LLMs do their reading for them. Watching golf isn't playing golf.

[freedomben]

Once you've bought that food and it's on your plate, how would you feel about the farmer who grew it coming up and forcing you to eat it with a specific fork or only using approved utensils?

[lm28469]

You don't mind having an llm owned by a megacorp lecturing you about the meaning of a book ?

"Yes this is a good question about 1984 by George Orwell, you could indeed be tempted to compare the events of this book with current authoritarianism and surveillance but I can assure you this book is a pure work of fiction and at best can only be compared to evil states such as China and Russia, rest assured that as a US citizen you are Free"