|
In the proposal you also have the problem of multiple avenues of distribution.
Let's say I *want* to publish the book for the blind. My publisher spends a lot of money to offer the translation, and we sell it at a given price point in order to recoup costs.
EVEN IF I OFFER AN ACCESSIBLE WORK, the proposal still makes it legal for someone else to make a version of my work more accessible, so long as it's only to the blind. So they can turn around and offer it, for free, or even make money off it via rental. It cuts any sales I make in half, or even undercuts them completely. Why would a blind person buy my braille version, when they can get it cheaper or for free from a non-profit?
The proposed law actually *disincentivizes the publisher* from making works accessible. Why should he risk capital to do so, when someone else can swoop in and scoop up the profits for almost nothing? Better to just not make the effort and let the charity organizations make it available since they now have every right to do so.
I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the disabled and the disadvantaged, but bad law is bad law.
|