[A2k] Bookshare DRM and selling out

[Jim@Benetech.org]

Since the following words appeared in RMS' email:=0D
> That way there would be no motivation for organizations like Bookshare to=
 sell us out in exchange for the publishers' cooperation.=0D
=0D
I'm not sure why I should refrain from using "selling out" as a concept of =
note.  For me, it's an amusing hook, but I didn't start using the term in t=
his thread.  I'm hoping to keep the rhetoric at selling out or lower rather=
 than upping the ante.=0D
=0D
One of the reasons I quoted the entire email I was referring to was to help=
 folks know what I was responding to.=0D
=0D
What freedoms did we curtail?  That was my question.  I'm trying to get to =
the substance of this, rather than word gymnastics.  It would be helpful to=
 address the substance of the post.  If we curtailed no freedoms and expand=
ed many, then what is the problem?  If the answer is: you used the word DRM=
 to describe your policies, and we hate the word, then OK.  I've got that p=
oint.  But that's very different from the question of freedoms, which I thi=
nk is really important.  It's well worth exploration if it influences the d=
iscussion of expanding the copyright exemption globally, since I think it w=
ill be an incredible force for freedom for people with disabilities.=0D
=0D
Jim=0D
=0D
-----Original Message-----=0D
From: Federico Heinz [mailto:fheinz@vialibre.org.ar]=0D
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 11:14 AM=0D
To: Jim@Benetech.org=0D
Cc: a2k@lists.essential.org=0D
Subject: Re: [A2k] Bookshare DRM and selling out=0D
=0D
On 03/05/2009, Jim@Benetech.org wrote:=0D
> Some helpful folks forwarded me an A2K post last week from Richard=0D
> Stallman accusing us of selling out the blind and print disabled with=0D
> DRM.  I found that somewhat surprising [...]=0D
=0D
Quoting from the message you attached at the bottom of your message, RMS sa=
id:=0D
=0D
> However, I expect it rather to have the opposite effect:=0D
> schemes like Bookshare, which subject blind readers to DRM, will=0D
> reassure and support the legislators that hate our freedoms.=0D
=0D
You may, of course, choose to read the above as "Bookshare has sold out", b=
ut=0D
it's not what it says. Choosing to read it that way is seeking a confrontat=
ion=0D
where none exists, and I don't think that is ever a good idea, so please=0D
refrain from doing so.=0D
=0D
What it does say, however, is very simple: when you used the exception to=
=0D
make those works available to reading-impaired people, you didn't *need* to=
=0D
encumber the works you published with DRM. The exception didn't *force* you=
 to=0D
do it, and you could have published the books without DRM, yet you *chose* =
to=0D
deliver the works with DRM.=0D
=0D
Now, works that could be available to blind people without DRM are delivere=
d to=0D
them with DRM. Even works that were originally published without any DRM ma=
y=0D
be DRM-encumbered for blind people, after passing through Bookshare.=0D
=0D
I think it is pretty clear that Richard is right in pointing out that the f=
act=0D
that Bookshare *chooses* to ship its works with DRM indirectly supports the=
=0D
stance of DRM advocates.=0D
=0D
=09Fede=0D