Why Everyone Should Care About DRM's Punishment Of The Visually Impaired
from the our-problem-too dept
Techdirt writes a lot about the problems with DRM, and how inefficient and inconvenient it is. But for millions of visually-impaired people, those "inconveniences" represent something much deeper, and much worse. Somebody who has started writing eloquently about this issue is Rupert Goodwins. He is one of the UK's most respected technology journalists and also, sadly, is losing his sight. As he points out in a powerful new piece, things ought to be getting better for the visually impaired in the Internet age:
there's never been a better time to go blind: we are busy converting the world to digital, and digital is supremely easy to convert.
Of course, it hasn't worked out like that, thanks to the widespread use of DRM on ebooks:
With DRM, the commercial model of the provider goes beyond an application or a service. It is designed to constrain the customer to using something in only the way approved by the content provider, and it has legal backing.
He goes on to describe his attempts to get an ebook he had bought into a form that he could read. After half an hour of fruitless efforts -- which included receiving some rather ironic marketing messages telling him to "enjoy the experience" and "enjoy your book" -- he did what most people would have done at the start: he cracked the DRM. As he points out:
If I can't use a particular word processor, I can find another. But if I can't read a particular book because it is only readable on a particular platform and that platform isn't readable to me, I'm stuck.I dare say this is against the terms and conditions of one or more of the many impossible-to-read EULAs I clicked on in the process of trying to be a responsible digital consumer. But the author got paid and nobody lost out -- except for me, in terms of time lost and mental misery endured.
He also mentions something important that everyone working at companies employing DRM might like to consider:
This is the reward you get for being disabled and wanting to do the right thing. This is how the world's most splendid machine for freeing our minds from our physical shackles is itself being shackled. This is what will happen to all of you reading this as you get old. I know this, I've done the research: most of you will start to go blind before you die.
Ultimately, then, DRM is a problem for all of us. Maybe we should fix it sooner, rather than later, so that people like Goodwins can read the books they have bought without resorting to methods that are illegal, and we can read texts when we're old and increasingly blind ourselves.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drm, rupert goodwins, visually impaired
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Blind people breaking the law are wrong. This guy, who publicly states that he broke the law, should go to jail or be fined millions of dollars.
The law is the law. If you don't like it then change it. Being blind is no excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Taxpayers breaking the law are wrong. This guy, who publicly states that he wants representation, should go to jail or be fined millions of dollars.
----
Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you get to break the law. So what if you're being enslaved? Respect the law, and do the right thing by serving your master. If you're enslaved, you're being enslaved for a reason.
Slaves breaking the law are wrong. This guy, who publicly states that he wants to be a free man, should go to jail or be fined millions of dollars.
/Hoping I'm continuing the intended absurdity
//If not, hoping the OP is just a troll
///Oh please don't let the OP be serious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you get to break the law. So what if you can't sell shave-ice? Respect the law, and do the right thing by buying something else. If shave-ice is illegal during certain parts of the year, it's illegal for a reason.
Shave-ice lovers breaking the law are wrong. This guy, who publicly states that he sells shave-ice in January, should go to jail or be fined millions of dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, what morality is there to be had when someone is denied access to something they paid for based solely on a physical handicap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Once we get passed the 2 being linked we should be fine.
Ok, yeah, even I think I sound delusional...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Civil disobedience has been correctly summarized by Thomas Jefferson: "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know I am willing to bet around 90% of the people who come here regularly would be more than happy to change the law. Sadly it seems us consumers are not really worth paying any attention to.
Now as for this "This guy, who publicly states that he broke the law, should go to jail or be fined millions of dollars." Well, he will have good company, because we have other laws we need to enforce against people bragging. How about we toss Obama in with him. I seem to remember Obama saying he tried some drugs.... We can also toss in most rap singers, actors, actresses, and politicians.
Take a look around at this disgusting government, there are tons of laws on the books being ignored all the time. Most only enforced when the government is out to throw someone under the buss for saying something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Laws come into being these days because special interest groups write them, and then pay bribes (aka "campaign fund donations") to legislators to get them passed. That does not make said laws moral nor ethical. It has not be all that long since it was legal for a White male to imprison a human being and force him or her to work and live in appalling conditions until he or she was sold, or died - or was killed, legally, by the "slave owner."
Opposing immoral laws, and disobeying them; working to change them; that is the right, nay, the *DUTY* of every person of good conscience.
I reject the laws favoring the business model of buggy-whips manufacturers, and look forward to the possible future in which content creators are rewarded for producing good content, rather than content publishers being rewarded for marketing any content, good or bad, with no legal recourse for consumers who find it of little value, or even unusable, after the purchase is made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/average joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As my presbyopia worsens as I age, I don't know what I'd do without my iPad and the Kindle/iBook/Nook apps. While I miss the feel and smell (yes, I love ink and paper) of dead tree books, I greatly appreciate the convenience and options ebooks offer.
There's a following of audio books, so what if these publishers made a deal with the author or hire a celebrity/actor to create a version you can download with the book? Make it a premium if necessary! How many would download a re-release of "Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone" if you could bundle it with an Audiobook narrated by Daniel Radcliffe, JK Rowling or even Emma Stone? It could be enjoyed by every one, including the visually impaired. They could partner with organizations and charities, market the product as "blind friendly" and sell it either with our without a standard ebook version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, this was the country that had to dub "Mad Max" (The Road Warrior)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My long-term assertion about ADA issues is that making things accessible for people with disabilities usually makes life better for everyone. That assertion applies in this case. Getting rid of DRM would help the blind. In the process it would also help everyone else.
A temporary band-aid solution would be to require everyone who produces a DRM'ed device to also produce an array of devices for vision impairments. So they would have to produce versions Braile version, a talking version, large print, high contrast, and various types of color blindedness. Of course, that would be a huge expense for anyone producing a device that imposes DRM. Perhaps then the providers would understand the huge cost they are imposing on the rest of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
only fitting...
although, justice can see money well enough...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: only fitting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Sale Doctrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My first thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blinding Madness
Next thing you know they will want braille stop signs!
Is there no end to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]