Obviously with e-book technology improving such as the recent announcement of the Amazon Kindle 2 there is the new possibility of making books available to sight-impaired people by having the digital device read aloud, but currently this may be illegal due to 1) DRM and 2) there are no allowances in Fair Dealing for any copying that might be involved.

It seems like allowing people to have legally purchased digital books read aloud within their homes would be a good idea, however from the news site Slashdot...

Quote

"The Author's Guild claims that the new Kindle's text-to-speech software is illegal, stating that 'They don't have the right to read a book out loud,' said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. 'That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.' Forget for a moment that text-to-speech doesn't copy an existing work. And forget the odd notion that the artificial enunciation of plain text is equivalent to a person's nuanced and emotive reading. The Guild's claim is that even to read out loud is a production akin to an illegal copy, or a public performance."

So we'd need 1) DRM Free New Zealand and 2) Allowances in Fair Dealing for copying for the purposes of speaking aloud legally purchased digital books.

Does that sound like a sensible goal of the CFF?

And a somewhat funny Orwellian story about how DRM might affect books in the future

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

My mother has a degenerative visual condition, so it's slowly becoming harder for her to read the printed word. At the moment, I frequently read aloud to her. What happens if I move to another city? I could easily make audio recordings and email them to her. Unfortunately, under current law, I would first need to try to become "a body prescribed by regulations made under [the Copyright] Act" for the purposes of Section 69. If I failed to do so, I would risk having my internet connection perfectly legally disconnected under Section 92A. It seems absurd to put this hurdle in the way of willing volunteers, threatening them with such a disproportionate punishment if they fail to comply.

Furthermore, screen-readers are routinely used by blind people to read web-pages. Does the Author's Guild think they're all law-breakers because they fail to get permission to read each web-page?

Anyway, on to your suggestions:

1) I don't think I'd support a ban on DRM, but I would support the repeal of all laws that regulate the circumvention of DRM. Copyright infringement is already illegal; there's no need to ban devices that might sometimes be used to infringe copyright. Such devices can also be used to facilitate fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review, so there are good freedom-of-expression reasons to encourage the spread of these devices (which are usually just general-purpose computers). I might even support a law that requires DRM-encumbered products to be prominently identified as such before sale.

2) I'm not sure that fair dealing is the right way to go. Fair dealing provisions are exceptions to the copyright monopoly. The right for print-impaired people to read shouldn't be an exception to copyright law; it shouldn't be regulated in the first place. So how do I think copyright law should be changed? I'm not sure, but one strategy might be to change copyright law to regulate commercial exploitation, instead of regulating copying, which happens all the time when people are enjoying digital works in the privacy of their own homes.

I don't consider myself an artist. However, I intend to enrol for a Master's degree this year; this may well result in some sort of publication. I wouldn't want anyone to think that they needed my explicit permission to read my work in whatever way suits them best.

Hi Tim,

Quote

I don't think I'd support a ban on DRM, but I would support the repeal of all laws that regulate the circumvention of DRM.

I agree.

DRM is sort of like a permanent anti-competitive patent except on copyrighted works. It never expires, it never has a limit where it stops imposing restrictions even when they conflict with Fair Dealing. If DRM is going to be protected by the government then it needs to be regulated just like copyright and patents, but it would be better to remove this government protectionism for arbitrary restrictions. Copyright law is enough.

Quote

I'm not sure that fair dealing is the right way to go. Fair dealing provisions are exceptions to the copyright monopoly. The right for print-impaired people to read shouldn't be an exception to copyright law; it shouldn't be regulated in the first place.

Well those two ideas could be done in parallel. It seems like Fair Dealing exceptions would be far easier to ask for than an overhaul of the copyright system (the 'first principles rewrite' as some people are calling for).

Matthew Holloway wrote

Well those two ideas could be done in parallel. It seems like Fair Dealing exceptions would be far easier to ask for than an overhaul of the copyright system (the 'first principles rewrite' as some people are calling for).

Yes, we may be waiting a while for a first-principles rewrite, and we should take what improvements we can get in the meantime. However, fair dealing (Sections 42, 43, and 176) still might not be the best thing to aim at. Section 69 already makes an exception for people with print disabilities. The problem is that it's out of date.

When books for the print-impaired were usually in Braille and sometimes on magnetic tape, making an accessible book was an expensive task. Anyone willing to go to this trouble might not have been too worried about applying to become a "body prescribed by regulations" and notifying the owner of the copyright. These days, almost anyone can make an accessible book (or at least an accessible newspaper article) by reading aloud into a microphone. The regulations are now a disproportionate burden for people who want to do this. (Sadly, this was probably also true in 1994, when the current Copyright Act was written, but these days, the distribution can be as cheap as the recording.)

To add to the confusion, Section 89 has different rules if you want to provide subtitles for the deaf. I don't know, but there might even be other sections that have different rules regulating adaptations for people with other impairments. Perhaps they should be replaced by a single simple section that allows everyone to freely adapt any copyrighted work non-commercially in order to make it more accessible (including by running software that automatically adapts the work, if that really is currently regulated, as the Authors' Guild would have us believe).

Quote

However, fair dealing (Sections 42, 43, and 176) still might not be the best thing to aim at. Section 69 already makes an exception for people with print disabilities. The problem is that it's out of date.

Hmm... thanks for the pointers. Sounds like I've got some reading to do

This morning, I got in the mail a four-page update from the Blind Foundation (by which I mean the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, or RNZFB). The update is called inSIGHT, and I wasn't able to find it on the web. Anyway, in their News in Brief column, I noticed this:

Quote

2009 marks the 200th anniversary of Louis Braille's birth. The Foundation will be celebrating with activities that focus on the right to read, literacy and access to information.

I might let them know about the Authors' Guild's ridiculous posturing, denying blind people the right to read, but it probably wouldn't hurt if other people told them, too.

"Amazon announced today that it will let publishers decide whether they want the new Kindle e-book device to read their books aloud"

Semi-related: http://www.readingsfortheblind.org/

readingsfortheblind.org wrote

we don´t have any geographic requirements for eligibility. We serve people anywhere in the United States.

Hmm...

Along the same lines, there's LibriVox. I've heard some say that it's the most prolific audiobook publisher in history. And their annual budget is exactly the cost of keeping the domain name registered. It's quite a clear example of copyright law getting in the way; little material published in the last 85 years is available for LibriVox to record, regardless of whether there's a competing commercial audiobook, and regardless even of whether the material is still commercially valuable in any form at all.

Cory Doctorow speaks up,

" I don't think that text-to-speech is a substitute for audiobooks for the majority of listeners, and because the value of text-to-speech is such that people will buy enough ebooks to offset any losses from substitution, and, most importantly, authors who oppose this feature look like grasping, greedy jerks and will alienate their readers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/31/cory-doctorow-kindle

Protest group

Quote

As technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with print disabilities deserve the opportunity to enjoy access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print.

http://www.readingrights.org/

Also relevant: Radio New Zealand's One in Five programme today, starting at about 19 minutes and 25 seconds through the recording.

Neil Gaiman comments (thanks to SomethingAwful's Dead Alice),

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/02/quick-argument-summary.html

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3964/125/

Regarding DRM the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians will be pushing for

Quote

2009-07: Digital Rights Management

Whereas, digital rights management locks down content from much screen reading software;

Whereas, the use of anti-circumvention measures to by pass these locks is often prohibited; and

Whereas, we are reliably informed that the government will introduce a copyright reform bill;

Therefore, be it resolved that government ensure that no new barriers are created that will hinder users in exercising their consumer rights of fair dealing.

I'm glad the RNZFB has taken up this issue, cos I still haven't got round to writing to them yet. This week's excuse was my submission on the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill, for which submissions are due tomorrow (Friday). Despite the title, it also proposes to make changes to copyright law, giving Customs vast inquisitorial powers to compel people to appear before them to answer questions, even if there's suspicion only of civil breaches of the Copyright Act. If the Police arrest you for a criminal offence, they can't compel you to give a statement, and if you're charged, you can't be compelled to be a witness at your own trial, so this law would give Customs powers that the Police and Courts can only dream of (which dreams would be nightmares for our civil liberties).

haha Smell of Books™ Under Attack By Authors Guild