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).
I usually listen to Audible when I can't or don't want to read (e.g. walking or on a commute).
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?
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.