Opinion: Does text-to-speech qualify as a derivative work?

This week Amazon launched its new eBook reader: the Kindle 2.0. Among the new features of the Kindle is the capability to convert text to speech, enabling the device to read an eBook to its user. A handy new feature for users tired of reading, and a big boon for the visually handicapped, one would say.  

However, authors and publishers are not amused. The American Authors Guild has stated that the text-to-speech function violates their copyright. They argue that by using the text-to-speech feature on the Kindle, users are creating a derivative work. Something that is not allowed under copyright law without prior permission of the author.

Though in general I agree with doctrine of derivative works, I fail to see why it would apply to this particular situation. The moral rights of the authors are not abused, and it is very unlikely that someone using the text-to-speech function hurts the economic interests of the authors and publishers (they already bought the book). As such there is little reason to enforce copyright.

Moreover, even if using the text-to-speech function would qualify as the creation of derivative work, it would likely be covered by the principles of fair use (in the US) and/or the private copying exceptions (in continental Europe). The reason why I feel it would be covered by the fair use and/org private copying exception is that the general use of the text-to-speech function is of a temporary and private nature (i.e. letting the device read a book to you). It might be different when someone would record the speech and then publish it, but this is altogether a different and, if you ask me, unlikely scenario. While having a tinny, computerized voice read an ebook to you could have its benefits, it is hardly a match for professionally produced audio books that indeed qualify as derivative works.

Even though I’m ‘pro-copyright’, I feel that in this case the authors and publishers are just plain wrong. By expanding the reach of copyright into this particular area, they are hampering the uptake of ebooks and ebook readers, something that could potentially cost them a lot of future revenue. But more importantly, they are alienating consumers by denying them interesting and worthwhile services. It is highly likely that anti-copyright activists and pirates will use this as another argument for the virtues of violating copyright. This could be detrimental for the already limited support of copyright under consumers.

Copyright is of paramount importance for authors, publishers and other rights holders, but by insisting on enforcing copyright in this particular instance, the Authors Guild is hurting not only the interests of their own industry, but also that of other branches of the entertainment sector that depend on copyright for their survival.