[gui-talk] A glitch in the righteous posture? (was Reading Rights Coalition Denounces Random House)

Fri May 22 18:52:38 UTC 2009

Joel,

Believe it or not, I have some of the same sentiments as you seem to on this topic, but I see reasons why we can't just sit back and be happy as long as our 
copyright exemption is holding fast.  I do understand some of the reservations expressed by authors, but I also believe they need to take a fresh look at this not just 
because of us but because times change.

The pattern that has existed for many years is that persons who could not physically read print were excluded from information distribution except as we learned to 
use readers and special library services.  Information was actually distributed as print letters on paper which could not readily be automatically converted into 
something we could read.  Nothing new there, I know, I'm stating the obvious, but one has to have a starting point.  Now, comes along the personal computer.  
Once we began to see speech devices and braille printers, and as screen readers developed, virtually all walls between print readers, braille readers and even 
speech listeners came down as far as information distribution went.  We certainly had accessibility problems, and at first, most blind people didn't know how to use a 
computer, but for the most part, the data was electronic and the roadblocks were generally legal ones in some cases rather than those interposed by our inability to 
read print.  Information was and is being distributed electronically where a print or braill "A" can be generated from the same electronic "A".  

What we have started to see is authors and publishers taking more pains to protect their works without regard to whether they were closing blind people out.  They 
don't see it as closing us out because they have allowed the copyright exemption that gives us to right to have books in a specialized format.  To some degree, 
though, we are being prevented from using books as they become available not because they can't be displayed in a way that we can use, but because the 
decision has been made that separate but semi-equal is all that needs to be done.  This is markedly different than what occurred for the centuries when information 
was conveyed on paper.  Authors do not expect, for example, that we should buy an extra copy of a print book if we are reading it to a child.  We have a right to 
read the book and change its presentation for our children.  Authors do not insist that rather than reading our kids a bedtime story, we should be legally required to 
buy an additional audio copy for our kids.  

With electronic books things are not quite so simple, I realize that.  Still, I believe there are two valid positions being taken that really need to be sorted out.  I do not 
disregard completely the author and publisher's contention that they have a right to make money by selling separate copies of their works in audio format.  However, 
I believe their defense is a little disingenuous in that they were not interested in creating such recordings until it was shown to make money.  Therefore, can one 
necessarily argue that if they loose money because other means become available to listen to books that this is a violation of their rights?  Perhaps the market has 
moved on because of technology.  Might this not be a little like saying that they have a right to require that a print book be purchased along with the electronic 
book?  They have realized that the market has moved such that not everyone buys a print book, so they no insisting that everyone buy a print book wouldn't fly.  
Rather than demanding that books not be rendored with synthesized speech, why not make sure that the audio books they sell are of better quality or offer 
something extra.  The fact is that any sighted computer user could get any book read out loud now with OmniPage and other scanning software, but it is simply too 
much work to be worth it, but the technology is already there.  The fact is that technology is changing and publishers and authors need to recognize that, and we 
need to recognize that this is our chance to become part of the mainstream of information since it is generally in electronic format and not ink on a page designed to 
be read only visually with a reading lamp.  This becomes even more important as colleges move to electronic textbooks, many of which are not accessible to us.  I 
think there is room to have some understanding of the publishers' positions while still realizing that we have to apply enough pressure to have our access built into 
the new information infrastructure being created.  This is really a long term issue that goes beyond any single situation.  Gutenberg didn't leave us out intentionally 
when he developed the printing press, but frankly, publishers and authors are leaving us out to protect their profits.  They may have that legal right, but we will never 
achieve some sort of middle ground position if we don't push back, unfortunately.  That's why I feel I can understand their position to some degree but embrace our 
position.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:18:56 -0700, Joel Deutsch wrote:

>Dave,

>I have just woken up with a major headache and am sipping my way through a 
>first mug of coffee, so I'm not sure I can respond as coherently to your 
>explanation as I'd like to. But I'll take a chance with saying  that there's 
>something in the logic of it that seems oddly like a case of apples and 
>oranges. The copyright issue seems to be about something novel (the Kindle 
>and other e reader devices) and not related to any other aspects of blind 
>exceptions to copyright law. Through which we already have the right to have 
>NLS recorded books without anyone being in violation of a book's copyright 
>protection or having to pay a fee for the privilege of recording it for 
>those unable to read print.

>As for commercial recorded books, we already have them, on CD and audio 
>files such as those sold by audible.com, and there's no hassle about those, 
>as recording rights are bought when they're produced. Now, I would not mind 
>if . audible books all had markers in them that pertained to useful 
>divisions like chapters rather than arbitrary sectioning-- a precious few 
>audible books actually have chapter markers, which makes me pathetically 
>grateful since someone taught me how to jump among them on my Sansa M230--  
>and I wish the portable CD players and the.mp3 players could navigate these 
>files at least minimally. Like by chapter. But nobody's going after the Sony 
>Discman or the multitude of .mp3 players that are deemed audible ready by 
>audible. It's a wonder that I was able to be taught a rudimentary way to 
>navigate my Sansa even so, by one person on the blind Audible list combined 
>with the on site (hah! I mean 3-D) assistance of a stalwart sighted friend 
>who teaches me to use many of the devices around my home by touch and 
>memory.

>I'm just rambling, I'm afraid. But buried in here is a real question about 
>the copyright issue. Leaving blind users out of it for the moment, it has 
>sounded to me as if the basic problem is that Amazon, seemingly thinking 
>themselves exempt from the usual business model where a publisher has to 
>sell the rights for audio in order for a book to be recorded, thinks that 
>because they're accomplishing this with synthesized speech instead of using 
>human readers,, they don't have to mess with the licensing arrangements. If 
>it weren't for their synthesized  speech thing,they'd have to pay the 
>publishers for the right to sell recorded editions of books. I'm sure they 
>felt this was clever of them, but we see that it's caused an uproar, 
>understandable. But my first impression, and still my impression, that 
>however unfortunate this is for blind readers, and that the blind should 
>indeed protest, it's the publishers and authors who are getting shaftted 
>fundamentally, and why the NFB is lobbying for *them* to shut up, lie down 
>and take it like good soldiers for the sake of the disabled is a little 
>confusing to me. It seems to me that Amazon has invented a new scenario 
>because of being able to use synthesized speech, and they shouldn't get away 
>with it for free. I guess I can't see all the way down the line to where 
>it's supposedly a problem between the blind and American copyright law. I 
>think a lot of steps are being skipped.

>But maybe that's just me. Maybe I simply never have had enough coffee to 
>raise my consciousness to the point it needs to be to get the logic of this.

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
>To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:56 AM
>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] A glitch in the righteous posture? (was Reading 
>Rights Coalition Denounces Random House)

>Joel:  I would say there are three reasons for the protest.  First,
>there are groups in the Reading Rights Coalition who are directly
>impacted now -- persons with disabilities besides
>blindness.  Secondly, it is my understanding that Amazon has said
>that they intend to make the device accessible to blind persons at
>some point, so we are working for the future, and third, I think we
>are trying to stop something by the authors before something worse
>happens.  If we loose the right to use text to speech here -- what is next?

>Dave

>At 11:00 AM 5/21/2009, you wrote:
>>I have seen a lot of discussion on this issue about the Amazon Kindle and
>>the juggling of copyright law in regard to speech output. I don't wish to
>>address the legal issues, either from the copyright side or the ADA side.
>>But what I do wonder, repeatedly, is what all this can matter, practically
>>speaking, for someone like me lacking central (macular) vision or totally
>>blind, as the controls that allow use of this device are said to be
>>inaccessible, I believe because they're touch-screen controls and not
>>mechanical buttons whose use can be memorized by an enterprising person 
>>with
>>a little help from a sighted tutor, meaning a friend who will patiently
>>teach the skill.
>>
>>For whose benefit is protest being made at this point? The partially 
>>sighted
>>who can read visually given enough text size and contrast, but who for some
>>reason can't locate and identify the control buttons? if so, I can say 
>>fine,
>>no problem. But If the stated objection is without regard to the possible
>>ironies and contradictions and, as such, is actually just a first step in 
>>an
>>anticipated battle to inspire yet a further upgrade to the Kindle that 
>>will,
>>this time, include blind-operable controls, that too I could understand.
>>Hassle them about the copyright thing first, then, while they're busy
>>fighting the NFB over that, hit them with the control inaccessibility 
>>thing.
>>Never having been entirely serious about the copyright issue while it was
>>still moot for practical reasons to do with nonoperability.
>>
>>Personally, if I were to purchase a Kindle, I'd have to do all my reading 
>>on
>>it aided by a sighted person who could change the page display for me, like
>>the page turner who stands beside the bench of a concert pianist as the
>>pianist plays from his or her score. This isn't practical for me, as I have
>>neither a slave or a paid assistant. So I continue to buy my commercial
>>recorded books from audible. com and play the files either on my computer
>>with the Jaws-friendly Audible Manager software or on my .mp3 player, which
>>required two people, one blind via email and a second sighted and here with
>>me, to teach me how to use well enough despite the unit's reliance on a 
>>menu
>>window.
>>
>>I hope I've posed this seeming contradiction clearly enough.
>>
>>thanks.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>gui-talk mailing list
>>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>for gui-talk:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com
>>
>>
>>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>>signature database 4095 (20090521) __________
>>
>>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>>http://www.eset.com

>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>gui-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/jdeutsch%40dslextreme.com 

>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for gui-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com