Audio Rights from Device Readings of Works?

President Alicia Henn posted a link to this (well-written) article by Roy Blount, Jr., addressing the question of whether authors should receive payment for audio rights as a result of Kindle 2 (and other similar devices) converting text versions of works to speech.

An interesting question. My initial impression is that having your device read your book aloud is no different than having a friend read it to you. That seems like a fair use of the product that you have purchased.

When one purchases an audio version of the book, one usually receives more value than simple reading aloud. Well, most of the time. Some paid readers are pretty damn annoying. But when you get someone like George Guidall reading, wow, what an addition to the story! Voice characterizations, accents, excellent inflection, these are all things one generally gets from an audio version of a book. Machines might be able to get the inflections right, but it's going to be a while before they're able to add the rest of these things.

Now to color my initial impressions with Blount's article. First, wow! That was one of the best written newspaper pieces I have read in a long time. I almost almost recognized it as an essay, though it's been so long since I've read or written one, my specs on essays are a but rusty.

Blount addresses some of my initial concerns, underscoring that audio performances of a non-commercial nature by, for example, parents reading bed time stories are not the target of the Guild. However, there is nothing preventing the Guild from changing their mind on that point, unless we save Blount's statement in an unofficial capacity and try to use it as a defense should the Guild sue such a parent.

Blount indicates that the machine voices closely approach human subtleties in reading. However, as I pointed out, most audio versions have more than someone reading you the story, so there is a much better justification for receiving royalties on them. Plus, even the ones that aren't are specifically prepared and marketed as audio versions of existing titles. And this is where I start to agree with Blount.

Blount's strongest point, in my opinion (non-legal opinion, simply personal opinion, so this is not legal advice - any of it), is that Kindle 2 is being marketed specifically for its ability to read in a pleasing manner. Thus, the reading aloud is a major selling point, or at least Amazon hopes it is, and people might be buying the device just for this purpose. I could see someone not wanting to subscribe to Audible.com for financial reasons looking at the Kindle 2 and saying, "Hey, you know, the voice actors add a lot, but I'm saving ten bucks if I only get one Kindle title a month." So, Audible (or other audio version sellers, even Amazon) loses a sale of an audio version because of the Kindle 2, and the authors don't get paid ther royalty. That is what we call damage.

The conclusion I reach in this long-winded post is that Blount actually has a strong argument. In fact, I partly hope the Guild wins. My reason for partial hope of success as opposed to full-bore hope of success is that I don't want the Guild coming after me for having my Mac read me something or for reading something to a friend or child. Yes, one can assert fair use as a defense, and the Courts might not take kindly to such a suit, but one still has to get into a legal battle to assert the defense, and that takes time and, ahem, money if it goes beyond the threatening letter stage. Thus begins the slide down the slippery slope.

Again, the contents of this post reflect the poster's personal opinion and should not be taken as legal advice.