|
Having read the proposal it looks like parts a and b are fine, but after that it gets murky. The way it is worded seems to open it up for possible abuse. It seems that what is defined as "reasonably available" could be interpreted in any manner of ways depending on who is interpreting it. This is why there is opposition to it. They should rewrite the proposal and tighten up the language so it has it's desired result but doesn't leave it open for abuse.
If a publisher does make versions of books available for the disabled I think it would be wrong for some other entity to copy that work and undercut their price claiming that it's not "reasonably available" as their reason for doing it. That would take away earnings from the publisher after they did put money into developing those books for the disabled, which should be encouraged more since it isn't done enough as it is.
Of course if a publisher does not make it available for the disabled at all than that publisher is out nothing anyway if someone else does and sells it. In that case they are just providing a service the publisher is not willing to do. I have no problem with that because everyone wins. The disabled get their books. The entity providing it gets some money, or karma if they did it for free. The original publisher... well I guess they didn't have to spend any money developing alternative versions of the book but really it would be nice if more did instead of just ignoring that segment of the market.
As for those that would not be able to afford disabled friendly versions of books at the publisher's asking price if the publisher is willing to provide that service, that's where charities or government organizations should step in and help those disabled pay for them, or provide them for free. Then the publisher still gets paid and the disabled still get their books.
|