USA, Canada and the EU attempt to kill treaty to protect blind people's access to wri

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Is there a better alternative?

Financial incentives which encourage making such titles available to the disabled, but do not require it? Making it illegal for others to profit via such a venture? Implementing a rigid definition of disabled that can't be easily expanded, and which treats author's rights in developing countries the same as in developed countries?

[Sparrow]

I was more wondering of there was a better alternative from a disabled person's pov - so they have the same access to books as everybody else.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I was more wondering of there was a better alternative from a disabled person's pov - so they have the same access to books as everybody else.

I would assume it depends on the disabled person's personal beliefs. Obviously some would want a federally-mandated program that ensured access to certain works according to government regulations; others would prefer a free market solution...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I would assume it depends on the disabled person's personal beliefs. Obviously some would want a federally-mandated program that ensured access to certain works according to government regulations; others would prefer a free market solution...

Beliefs? Do you mean religious (or similar) beliefs?

I would have thought that it would depend on what worked best and that is an empirical question.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by tompe

Beliefs? Do you mean religious (or similar) beliefs?

I would have thought that it would depend on what worked best and that is an empirical question.

More like religious (philosophical) beliefs.

What's the best method for making ebooks accessible for sighted people? You would have all sorts of different opinions here as to format, price, DRM, etc.

[rrburton]

I haven't read all of the notes here - but is the argument that a person requiring a braille or audio version of a, say, english printed or ebook version of something is not allowed to do so because they would be breaking copyright law?

What if a book is only published in german & I want to read it but only can read english? Do I break a copyright rule if I run it thru a translator of some sort?

I think, although it is very unfortunate that those unable to read a printed book have a limited selection from which to choose, basically it is up to the rights owner to decide if they want to make their work available to those individuals. Just as it would be their right to decide to publish only in certain languages. Those of us who require other languages just won't be able to read it is all. Less profit for them...?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by rrburton

I think, although it is very unfortunate that those unable to read a printed book have a limited selection from which to choose, basically it is up to the rights owner to decide if they want to make their work available to those individuals. Just as it would be their right to decide to publish only in certain languages. Those of us who require other languages just won't be able to read it is all. Less profit for them...?

With this argument it would be OK for rights holders (holders of the time limited monopol granted by the state) to refuse to sell books to people with big noses.

[Elfwreck]

The issue here isn't "publishers have/don't have the right to choose their customers." The issue is that businesses (in the US) don't have the right to decide not to make their business accessible to those with disabilities--you can't own a restaurant on the 2nd floor and say, "I don't need an elevator because I don't serve people in wheelchairs. Anyone who can't climb stairs isn't my target demographic and I don't mind losing their business."

Businesses in the US are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, nationality, religion, or disability (and sometimes, depending on state, various other categories). They ARE allowed to discriminate on the basis of language use--a business can say "we only serve people who speak English." Or Spanish. Or whatever. They are allowed to discriminate on the basis of income. They are allowed to discriminate on the basis of education, or criminal record, or zodiac sign, if they care to.

But not disability. A store in the US may not say, "I only sell picture-art, and therefore have no blind customers, and therefore seeing-eye dogs are not welcome in my store." Certainly, he cannot say, "I don't want any customers in wheelchairs and therefore I am not going provide ramps to my door; that would cost too much for customers I don't care about."

Publishers have certainly had plenty of opportunity to provide large-print, braille or audiobooks for visually disabled customers. For the most part, they don't bother. A percentage of the most popular books get audio versions; other than that, publishers have decided it's not worth their money to provide works for the blind.

And now it's being taken out of their hands. Claiming "but there's no incentive for them to develop these works!" is meaningless... if they had a financial incentive, they'd already be developing them.

This is not about making ebooks available for "people who otherwise wouldn't have access"--like people who don't read the original language, or people who don't have a Kindle. This is about not discriminating against people with disabilities, who have such a small market share that businesses are often happy to deny them access in order to save on business costs.

Publishing houses should be happy they're not being required to produce an audio/ebook version for visually impaired customers for every title they make, and offer it the same amount of shelf/web space they have for every other title.

[CleverClothe]

Excellent summary of the reasoning Elfwreck.

[kamm]

Sometimes one just cannot escape reading a truly sad public self-embarrassment of someone and left wondering "is this for real...?"

THis comment was one of them - God save us from "writers" like this comment's poster...

Originally Posted by sirbruce

No thanks. Disabled people have no more right to my commercially written words than someone who can't read English.

Ouch. Sweet irony! A supposed writer who thinks there's such thing as "commercially written words"... with this level of (il)literacy it's no wonder you're still haven't made it and stuck at the level of a forum troll...

Ahh: have you heard of translation? I doubt it so here's a quick rundown: it's a highly magical process when one takes the meaning of an English text and expresses it in a different language, trying to stay as close to word by word translation as possible.
Amazing, isn't it?
It gets even better: there are now even online, automated translators! FOR FRE!!!
Crazy world, I know.

Should non-English speakers be entitled to free copies of my work? What about the rights of the poor who can't afford it? Etc.

You sound like a disabled person - where did you get this "free copy" part?

And poor people etc: have you heard of this thing called public library? Had you ever visited one this "poor people" wouldn't have been open question for you...

[kamm]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Financial incentives which encourage making such titles available to the disabled, but do not require it? Making it illegal for others to profit via such a venture? Implementing a rigid definition of disabled that can't be easily expanded, and which treats author's rights in developing countries the same as in developed countries?

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I would assume it depends on the disabled person's personal beliefs. Obviously some would want a federally-mandated program that ensured access to certain works according to government regulations; others would prefer a free market solution...

Originally Posted by sirbruce

More like religious (philosophical) beliefs.

What's the best method for making ebooks accessible for sighted people? You would have all sorts of different opinions here as to format, price, DRM, etc.

More and more, an unstoppable flood of public self-embarrassment...


...amazing level of ignorance, complete lack of knowledge of the world.

Priceless, that is.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

The basis of that law is sound. If the version you require isn't available, it should be made available, one way or another. What I wrote might be a better solution: you buy the book and have it transformed into something you can use. That way, the author gets his share (as you will have bought the book), and you will have your useable copy. The worst part, imo, in that "law", is the part that re-selling copies of books would be permitted. I think that should never, ever, ever be allowed. Making copies for own use, yes, format shifting for own use, yes, but selling, never.

I didn't catch that part, can you quote this?

Speaking of selling: most ebooks copies are generally in direct violation of First Sale Doctrine as I cannot re-sell them.
I should be able to resell them as no, author SHOULD NOT GET A SINGLE CENT again from the transfer of license - enough from this silent push for perpetuated incomes and mopping the floor eith our (Fair Use) rights (let alone the fact any author can only draw isnpiration from our common world and build on his cultural background which also rooted in the common pool.)

License revoked and re-registered, that's it, ebook resold.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I support handicap parking spaces, but I don't support special parking spaces for women with children, or special parking for fat people. I recognize that negotiating a parking lot with small children can be difficult. I recognize walking long distances can be tiring for the overweight. However, neither of these examples rise to the same level as asking someone with emphysema to walk across a parking lot. The same reasoning applies to your examples. Being poor or a non-English speaker doesn't rise to the same level of disadvantage as being blind.

an overweight person who has problems with walking or walking long distances can be classified as disabled and can apply for a disabled sticker.

which, as a person from an overweight family, I support. if my mother has any more problems walking, she would need one, my stepfather has a bad hip and cant walk without a cane, and he does have a car, and he does have a sticker.

but as for the rights for the disabled, I would give free copies of my book to all blind people if I could do it for free on my end.if I cant, this law makes if legal for others to.

[HarryT]

Kamm,

Personal attacks are NOT ACCEPTABLE on MR. You are welcome to disagree with peoples' viewpoints, but lay off the personal abuse. Attack the argument, not the person.

Thank you,

[Moderator]

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Publishers have certainly had plenty of opportunity to provide large-print, braille or audiobooks for visually disabled customers. For the most part, they don't bother. A percentage of the most popular books get audio versions; other than that, publishers have decided it's not worth their money to provide works for the blind.

And now it's being taken out of their hands. Claiming "but there's no incentive for them to develop these works!" is meaningless... if they had a financial incentive, they'd already be developing them.

If this were truly the issue, then the solution is simple: pass a law *requiring* the publishers to provide books in some format for the blind. The law requires the restaurant owner to provide disabled access; why not the publisher?

Instead, the proposed law does not do that, but simply allows others to copy that book for the disabled and even profit via it, to the detriment of the author and the publisher. Where is the sense in that?

To go back to the restaurant example, it would be saying instead of requiring you offer disabled access or be fined and eventually shut down, saying that you can run your restaurant without disabled access, but anyone else can come along and steal your chairs, tables, food, menu, and so on and put up an identical restaurant with disabled access using your name on it.

Does this make sense?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Publishing houses should be happy they're not being required to produce an audio/ebook version for visually impaired customers for every title they make, and offer it the same amount of shelf/web space they have for every other title.

I disagree 100%... if the goal is to give disabled folks access, this is exactly what they should be required to do. Publishers might not like it, but as an author it's a much preferable solution, as I still get compensated fairly.