[blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild...

[Angie Matney]

Hi Chris,

Good post.

I would also like to point out that Jim Fruchterman (sp?) did indeed sign
the Reading Rights Coalition Petition.


Angie


-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Chris Danielsen
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:33 AM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should
thanktheAuthorsGuild...

James,I think you are right that negotiation with copyright holders is
important. However, one should always negotiate from a position of strength.
What we are doing here is that instead of going to the authors and
publishers and saying "Please be kind enough to give us more books," we are
firmly telling them that people who buy books, in whatever format, have the
right to read those books, and that there's a difference between making a
derivative work and simply converting a book into a format that is more
convenient for the user. The argument the Authors Guild is making is not
only wrong but entirely inconsistent with the positions that most authors
and publishers have taken in the past. For example, no one claims that a
blind person who buys a book, scans it and processes the scan with OCR
software, then reads the result with TTS is violating anyone's copyright.
But the Authors Guild's new argument opens the door to just that kind of
thinking, and believe it or not there are still publishers who are enemies
of access and would like to further restrict what the blind and others with
disabilities can do to make books accessible. There are even people who like
to bluster about seeking the repeal of Chafee. I think we are going to have
to play a little good cop, bad cop here in order to make sure our rights are
vindicated. On the one hand, we must be willing to talk directly to authors
and publishers, which is one of the reasons we are going to the LA Times
Festival of Books. On the other hand, we must also put pressure on them by
taking our case to the court of public opinion and standing firm on our
principles.

I object to this blog post for a couple of reasons. For one, the case that
the Authors Guild is right is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. Martinengo
makes it out to be. I don't dispute that he has done great work for access,
but I think he should think twice about adopting so unquestionably an
argument that limits access. I realize of course that he's in a difficult
position, as are people like the good folks at Benetech; they have to work
with publishers in order for their operations to be successful. But I think
he should avoid subscribing to dubious principles. Secondly, I absolutely
think he should avoid saying that the disabled should thank the Authors
Guild for anything at this point. Whatever his intent, it sounds patronizing
and paternalistic.

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of James Pepper
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should
thanktheAuthorsGuild...

The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the
blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland.  Robert Martinengo.  He
actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going
to have to deal with the copyright holders.

Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it
and Kindle did this work without their permission.  They just did it and
created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without
receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make
it readable in this format.

Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in
making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content.

I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll
the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this,
they will continue to create Daisy Books.  They have enough problems right
now with sales.

And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because
the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would
get a royalty on converting books to be accessible.
In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense.

Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had
the option to not publish their work.  It is their work.  So there needs to
be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in
Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to
the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508
regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle.

James Pepper
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol.
com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3988 (20090404) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3988 (20090404) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 


_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gma
il.com