[A2k] Bookshare DRM and selling out

[Jim@Benetech.org]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Some helpful folks forwarded me an A2K post last week from Richard
Stallman accusing us of selling out the blind and print disabled with
DRM.  I found that somewhat surprising, so I thought I'd invest the
effort to find out which freedoms we've sold out, since we've invested a
lot of effort in expanding freedoms for people with print disabilities
when it comes to content.  Of course, no good deed goes unpunished, and
it's always wonderful to be noticed by RMS.



I have enjoyed RMS' four freedoms meme in the context of software
development, but am curious how it applies to providing books to people
with print disabilities. Our readers have the freedom to use the books
we produce (a freedom they don't enjoy with printed books), make
multiple copies for their own use (more freedom to do that with our
digital copies), modify the digital books to suit their own needs by
turning the digital text into Braille, large print or digital audio
(again, we've expanded their freedom compared to a print book), and to
utilize other freedoms that exist under U.S. copyright law such as the
right to excerpt sections of content pursuant to fair use.



Oh, and Bookshare is a library built by our users: the majority of books
in Bookshare are there because a person with a print disability chose to
scan it and share it legally with their community.  Bookshare was
created to create the freedom to build a library for a community who
didn't have that power before, because we've created a place on the
Internet that qualified for the copyright exemption.  If one person
think that a book is worth sharing with the Bookshare community, we
think it's worth hosting it.



Surely Richard doesn't expect the existence of Bookshare to ensure free
distribution of these digital books to all people without disabilities
for free?  If that's the freedom we're selling out, it's clear that it's
a freedom that's not ours to give.  The one surest way to remove the
freedoms we've been creating for people with disabilities is to step
over the line of what's permitted in the copyright exemption.



So, are we selling out solely by using the term "DRM?"  Inquiring minds
want to know.



Jim



Jim Fruchterman

President and CEO, The Benetech Initiative

Email: jim@benetech.org <mailto:jim@benetech.org>



480 California Ave, Suite 201

Palo Alto, CA 94306   USA

(650) 644-3406

Fax: (650) 475-1066

www.benetech.org <http://www.benetech.org/>

The Benetech Initiative - Technology Serving Humanity

A nonprofit organization



From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org>

Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:48 PM

Subject: Re: [A2k] DRM (Digital Reformatory Mandates) & Opting Out of
Human Rights via Contract

To: Sherwin Siy <ssiy@publicknowledge.org>

Cc: lehto.paul@gmail.com, a2k@lists.essential.org,
james.love@keionline.org, jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com,
manon.ress@keionline.org





   Broadening exceptions and allowing for circumventions within the
framework

   can allow legislators to note the lack of such a digital catastrophe,
and

   begin to question the provision's use.



If I were convinced of this, I would support the plan.

However, I expect it rather to have the opposite effect:

schemes like Bookshare, which subject blind readers to DRM, will
reassure and support the legislators that hate our freedoms.



They will tell the public that DRM is proven and acceptable and even
"provides a way" to help blind people -- just look at Bookshare!

So how could anyone object to DRM?



Bookshare isn't legally required to use DRM.  It uses DRM in order to
get support from the publishers.  The publishers benefit two ways:

they get to say they are "helping blind people", and it supports their
campaign to impose DRM on us all.



It would be just as feasible to require all commercial publishers to
provide machine-readable text to programs for the blind on request.

That way there would be no motivation for organizations like Bookshare
to sell us out in exchange for the publishers' cooperation.



I would support that kind of campaign for the sake of blind people,
because its secondary effects for everyone else would be good instead of
bad.