Mar 01 2009
Some People Don’t See the Big Picture
I read this editorial in the New York Times last Thursday about some sort of swindling by Amazon.com via the Kindle 2 . I was stunned.
Now, I bought a Sony eReader because (a) the wireless doesn’t do anything for me, (b) it’s all metal casing, and (c) various and sundry other reasons. However, from everything I’ve read, the Kindle was a fine little piece of equipment. The new Kindle 2 adds a metal rear case, a few other nice-to-haves and what is described (in the editorial) as a fine computer-generated voice that the book be read out loud. As someone who reads beaucoup de books out loud to a very dyslexic husband, this seems like a great capability. But, the same group of people who brought us the “Amazon-shouldn’t-sell-used-books” whine are back. And in full whine in the editorial.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for authors being treated fairly and getting paid royalties for each and every one of their the copies of the books printed, bought via ebook route and recorded officially through that their publishing houses. Every book marketed (that has not already been purchased), they deserve a cut of. But that’s it.
This editorial was all about the Author’s Guild getting worked up because the Amazon Kindle 2 can read books out loud and the author’s haven’t sold them “audio rights” to it. What the heck? Now they won’t want to buy the professionally read audio versions at only 5X the price [Suggestion: trying making audio books that don’t cost an arm and a leg]. If we buy this notion, everyone who reads a book to their kid is potentially sue-able. Every reader’s aid or written word to audio is potentially at risk. And it’s counterproductive, in my opinion, to pursue it. How about all those audio books at the library? Apparently, reading it once ephemerally means you owe the author something.
As an author, I don’t believe I deserve a cut if someone reads my book out loud to their children nor, if someone reads my book out loud to their blind Aunt Myrtle (even if they record it because she’s in another state) do I think they need to get with me for audio rights. In my opinion, the fact that the voice is electronic is immaterial. Just as smart to sue magnifying glass manufacturers for making large print versions less appealing. Now, if someone wants to market that recording or makes illegal copies (hard or soft) and distributes them, then I, as the author have got a real legal leg to stand on with regards to the work. It’s mine, after all, and I should be the one making a profit with its dispersal.
You can’t “distribute” or market a computer-generated audio capability on one’s own Kindle 2. The difference between a computer generated voice and your cousin Harry reading it out loud to you are immaterial (or, probably, you’d prefer your cousin Harry). This getting one’s knickers in a twist for making reading material more accessible to people who are blind or have bad eyesight or are dyslexic or are driving all the time or just enjoy it more audio-like is whacked. They are hearing/reading your book. You want that, right? Only a certain subset of books are available in audio and, let’s face it, they’re far more expensive. By making this feature available, the Kindle 2 is making these books accessible to people who might never otherwise have a chance to read them.
Folks, that’s a boon. And it’s counterproductive to get in a tizzy over it.
In my opinion, get over yourselves. They paid for a copy. Get over it.
Tomorrow, what I think of the same Author’s Guild getting worked up over the used books Amazon sells.
Updated: 3-2 to clarify my position of distribution of a copyrighted work.
I enjoy the good old fashioned ‘hard copy’ book. I like technology, but there is just something different about reading a real book as opposed to reading (or listening) to an electronic one.
I fully expect that once I make a purchase of something, whether it be a book, music, or video, it is MINE to do with as I please…to a point. I bought the license to access that material, and if I chose to use the DVD as a coaster or the book pages as toilet paper (oh the horror!), that is my prerogative.
Now if I was using that material to turn some sort of profit for myself, I agree that would be in conflict and the author/originator of that work has every right to sue me or expect some piece of that profit. Pirates don’t all look like Johnny Depp and deserve whatever punishment they get.
I am totally in agreement with you. This is a GREAT feature that might make an otherwise unprofitable and expensive product more attractive to people who have not yet tried this new medium.
Stephanie, I think you are a perfect example. You have purchased hard copies and ecopies of the same books, so the distributor is making double the profit off you than they would have without that second medium. To expect you to pay AGAIN for a third is unrealistic and likely to discourage you from buying it even one time. Now if there was a recording of the reading down by a celebrity or a some other premium option, then by all means, charge for it at a premium price. But if I want to listen to the computer read to me a la Star Trek Enterprise because it is a built in feature for the device, that is the license and right I purchased when I acquired that device.
I know everyone is scrambling for a bigger piece of a dwindling pie right now, but I agree this is not the way to do it. Angering consumers, or taking away something as fundamental as reading our children bedtime stories could have a wicked backlash.
And I absolutely agree with your comment to fight piracy by making the originals more affordable.
Uh oh. Stephanie’s on the rampage again– I love it. A passionate post.
I went to an Entertainment and Sports Law Symposium, Friday. Good stuff. When we got to the Intellectual Property rights portion of entertainment, these very issues came up. Bottom line–people want to sue over everything, but the court won’t accept such frivolity to tie up its time.
Davida
Didn’t the authors just win this one? I’m sure I heard that, last week.
I remember when there was such a big to-do about singers getting a small royalty every time their music was played on a radio station. I suppose there’s more merit to that one, but I remember thinking at the time, “If I owned a radio station, and had to pay every time I played the song, well, I’d charge the singers too, every time I played it, for all the free publicity they were getting so people would buy their albums.”
There really has to be a limit, somewhere, to how many ways a person can try to gouge one more dime out of my pocket for exactly the same thing.