[Dtb-talk] NLS and copyright

[Grover Zinn]

In response to Kurt, let me make clear I don't have a problem with the  
NLS setting restrictions on the material that they provide (free, it  
must be remembered) for the blind.  That has been an unbelievable good  
for blind and disabled people.  However, it is a bit of a puzzle  
(other than for the usual political/economic reasons mentioned earlier  
in this thread) why the introduction of digital format also introduced  
the need for a key.  The "old" 4 track cassette tapes could be copied  
(in real time, i.e. slowly) whereas the digital format is "locked" if  
you don't have the key.

 From a purely copyright perspective, everyone has the right to one  
copy for personal use of any copyrighted work. (NOTE: The "public  
performance right"---i.e. play a musical score, perform a play, or  
show a DVD in a public venue, i.e. outside your home, is different  
from copyright issues; same for CDs in public "performance" uses).   
The Digital Millenium copyright law in the US does say that changing  
the format of a work is not legal (I believe I have that right;  
relying on memory), but the question is: are you changing the "format"  
in a narrow sense when a device reads an electronic text; the text  
remains the same, IMHO.

Interesting to realize that the situation in other countries is far  
different from what is true in the US, particularly the Australian  
situation of the illegality of hindering accessibility.  Barnes and  
Noble sounds like a typical protective corporate knee-jerk reaction.

Thanks  to Dave Kearny for such an excellent summation of the  
international situation and the details of the NLS Daisy book  
encoding.  (I know much more now!)  Looks like the US is unique in a  
way that is not helpful for the blind---while other countries take a  
different approach.  One fascinating (discouraging?) point in all of  
this from the viewpoint of the author (a diversion from our topic) is  
that publishers now want a copyright that gives them the right to use  
the text of an article or book in any other project, format, etc. and  
in fragmentary form. In a recent project, several of us just trashed  
the contract letter (on the advice of a lawyer) and wrote that we gave  
the publisher a one-time right to use the material in the specified  
book.  Not a peep back from them.

To me, it seems that the ebook folks are just wandering down a road a  
little bit like the music industry---but the numbers of people  
affected are very small.  Very small, that is, until all those iPod  
Touch and iPhone folks realize that the device really could read  
ebooks to them, if the DRM were removed.   (If you think I'm in favor  
of breaking copyright, you are wrong; as Assoc. Dean I shut down  
coursepacks, dealt with infringement of public performance rights,  
worked on better knowledge by all of copyright laws (it also protects  
authors in my college!!)----and on the other hand,  participated in  
the development of a library policy that allows extensive access to  
electronic copies of materials for specific courses by people in those  
courses.)

Non-talking ebooks restrict accessibility for blind and disabled  
people (I know I'm preaching to the choir.)  Unfortunately, the ebook  
publishers in the US appear to  see a "talking ebook" eating away at  
the audio book market----but then I suspect there will always be a  
market for books read by human voices rather than the synthesized  
voices reading text (although the latter are getting better).  It  
isn't primarily a case of "free" vs "paid" (NLS covers the "free"  
aspect for the books that they make available---a rather odd  
assortment in some ways; but the books are there; the "paid" would be  
the ebook marketers like Barnes and Noble, et al)

The NFB has done a good deed by putting pressure on Amazon re: the  
Kindle.  But pressure needs to be on the ebook market also!  (Colleges  
and Universities have a huge struggle getting books into readable form  
for blind students, given resources, copyright, and other details.   
Now, I believe they are able to cooperate between institutions.   
Judging from recent responses to an educational blog on the Arizona  
State situation, most students and citizens (limited sample) think  
making materials available and accessible to the blind and others is a  
snap and no problem and that people who think there is a problem  
should just go away!!  :-(

Well, enough said for now.  Need to get back to working on my current  
project that will be copyrighted (i.e. a translation from the Latin;  
and not likely to be an audio book, but perhaps an etext  :-)    )

best to all,

Grover Zinn




Grover Zinn
William H. Danforth Professor of Religion, emeritus
former Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Oberlin College
Oberlin, OH 44074
grover.zinn at oberlin.edu



On Dec 12, 2009, at 10:50 PM, Kurt Edwin Yount wrote:

> It should be noted that without the copyright that NLS used none of  
> these
> books that we remember would have been recorded because as the program
> was originallly imagined it was only meant for the blind, although  
> it ran
> the gambit from 33/1/3 to cassettes.  If you remember those days  
> when it
> said solely for the use of the blind it was always like that.  I
> understand how people outside the US would not want DRM protection,  
> but I
> also understand that it is an extremely valuable resource for those  
> who
> for years had little to read except braille.  I still treasure it,  
> even
> as I am sad that others outside the US cannot have access.  Remember  
> also
> that RNIB in England and I forget the one in Canada, CNIB I think also
> had restriction on borrowing previliges and still do.  Kurt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dtb-talk mailing list
> Dtb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/dtb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info  
> for Dtb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/dtb-talk_nfbnet.org/grover.zinn%40oberlin.edu