[blindlaw] Why print-disabled people shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild...

Mon Apr 6 23:07:47 UTC 2009

I'm compelled to say that I'm very impressed and even awed by everyone's
ingenious analytic insight into this issue.  The level of insight and
analysis is, to me, truly excellent.    Chris and Jim are like geniuses.
They seem to really understand the issues well.  Good luck at the LA book
fair.

Mike

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:18 AM, McCarthy, Jim <JMcCarthy at nfb.org> wrote:

> Though I don't question Mr. Martinengo's expertise, I would clarify a
> couple of facts.  He wrote one report for the state of Maryland that had
> some impact on getting a college textbook law passed here.  College
> students in Maryland still do not have accessible textbooks.  As for
> Georgia, Mr. Martinengo was hired to create an accessible textbook
> center to aid state wide access for Georgia's college students.  I am
> not sure how well that project is working but it seems that he has been
> trying to leave Georgia almost sense he arrived.  The center and its
> procedures may be well in place though.
>
> I would also point out that most of the framework in which the access to
> books issue has played out requires the benevolence of the publishing
> community.  In the k-12 context, publishers must provide electronic
> files for conversion into formats such as Braille, but there are no
> penalties if they don't do so.  In other contexts, those wanting to
> provide accessible books request electronic copies from publishers that
> publishers may or may not provide.  There is no way to make them provide
> these files at all.  This means that individuals like Robert Martinengo
> worry about offending publishers on any level.  If publishers are
> angered, forget about getting files for conversion.  I understand that
> caution but think this is quite a different issue.
>
> The Kindle 2 allows users to choose between two methods of content
> delivery, print to a screen or text to speech.  The latter opens huge
> doors for us because if we can actually get at this content through text
> to speech, whatever Amazon makes available to the nondisabled public is
> also made available to us so long as we can pay the book purchase price.
> I don't ever see the sort of models that Robert Martinengo is working
> with offering that potential for access.  In my view, it would be best
> for the community if Mr. Martinengo kept his opinions to himself and
> continued his work.  Our success on this issue will result in access to
> the printed word that would have been hard to imagine 20 or 30 years
> ago.  We might be setting a new access paradigm and Mr. Martinengo's
> caution will only get in the way.
> Jim McCarthy
>
> -----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
> shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild...
>
> 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%40
> aol.
> 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/jmccarthy%40nf
> b.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/mikefry79%40gmail.com
>