Why Everyone Should Care About DRM's Punishment Of The Visually Impaired

from the our-problem-too dept

Fri, Sep 28th 2012 9:27am — Glyn Moody

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.

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.
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: 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

37 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 9:42am

Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you get to break the law. So what if you're blind? Respect the law, and do the right thing by not consuming the content. If it's locked up, it's locked up for a reason.

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 thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 9:51am

Re:
If you don't like your eyes, get another pair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 9:52am

In trying to deal with piracy, DRM extends the control over a work beyond the intent of copyright, into control over consumption. The way some of the book publishers are going it will be illegal to read a book to your children without a performance license.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 9:54am

Re:
Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you get to break the law. So what if you're being taxed without representation? Respect the law, and do the right thing by paying the taxes. If you're being taxed, you're being taxed for a reason.

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 thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 9:56am

Re:
I'm rather of the opinion that copyright law ought to state that you can have a copyright or you can have DRM. If you want the government to enforce your monopoly, you can't have DRM. If you want DRM, then you can attempt to enforce your own monopoly that way and have no need for the government, courts, etc. I can't imagine DRM would last very long.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 9:57am

Re:
It already is, if you are doing it at a library or if enough people are within earshot of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ShellMG, 28 Sep 2012 @ 9:59am

This is a huge opportunity going completely missed.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:02am

Re:
Required reading: Lawfully Good vs Lawfully Evil - Falkvinge on Infopolicy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:05am

Re:
Some people like to bring morality into the Copyright debate.

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 thread ]
sehlat (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:05am

Re:
The law is an artificial construct. A machine written in code. It is a very badly implemented machine written by greedy and selfish people for their own purposes and to hell with the rest of us. It is certainly not some holy tablet handed down by Moses, me lad.

Civil disobedience has been correctly summarized by Thomas Jefferson: "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:13am

most politicians are old, but obviously not in the position of losing their sight, at least, not yet. i suppose though that when they do, they will have someone sent over and have the book read to them, courtesy of one or more of the entertainment industries
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:25am

Be careful!
The blind will steal you blind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kagzaz, 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:28am

Laws
Laws are useless if everyone ignores them. If they punish everyone, there wont be anyone left
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:30am

Re:
Yup, that book was clearly worth millions of dollars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:35am

Re:
Haha. I almost got tricked into thinking someone could really write such Godwin bait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:38am

I have been an advocate of ADA issues even before there was an ADA act. I actually gave my first speech on open access in 1971.

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 thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:39am

only fitting...
...since justice is blind !

although, justice can see money well enough...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digitari, 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:39am

Re:
does the American Disabilities Act work in any of this at all, You'd think there would be a LAW AGAINST this sort of thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:53am

Re:
Wow. This one is good. I honestly thought it was average_joe for a second writing as an AC (not that we don't all already know that he also post as an AC from time to time... although he'll deny it on occasion).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 10:54am

Re: Re:
It already is, if you are doing it at a library or if enough people are within earshot of you.
Indeed... and very soon the number of law enforcement agencies with warrantless surveillance on your house will mean you're breaking copyright even if there's no-one else around :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shmerl, 28 Sep 2012 @ 11:20am

Re:
There is no such law that you can't read books (even if you are blind). If you imagine yourself living in the world of "Fahrenheit 451" - it's your personal nightmare. Don't imagine that everyone should smoke the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Harrill (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 11:25am

First Sale Doctrine
Because of the First Sale Doctrine, couldn't I buy the book, make a new version with adaptions for the blind and then sell the new version at a price? While I know the knee jerk reaction is no, you are selling their content, aren't I just reselling the book in a usable form to an under served market?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 11:26am

Re:
"The law is the law. If you don't like it then change it. Being blind is no excuse."

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 thread ]
Robert Doyle (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 11:36am

Re: Re:
The argument made by the copywrong group is that they paid for the content in the format provided. Any alteration is outside the bounds of the agreement of sale which was not solely for the content but also the delivery.

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 thread ]
Robert Doyle (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 11:39am

Re:
I actually am waiting for the day when part of the deal of buying the book is that you can only read it yourself - no one can read it for you because then they would be getting the content as well... and that is wrong isn't it? :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 11:40am

Re: Re:
LOL, I agree with your intended point but you just compared being able to read a book to slavery. Not quite the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 11:45am

Re: only fitting...
So if he just printed all his book on money....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 11:52am

Re:
I know right? I mean, breaking DRM is almost as bad as smoking pot, the horror!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I knew the comparison was not nearly the same ("not quite the same" being a bit of an understatement), but I'm glad you got my point. Perhaps I should have taken the time to find a more equivalent case of breaking the law not being a bad thing. How about this:

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 thread ]
fb39ca4, 28 Sep 2012 @ 5:50pm

Come at me, publishers. https://apprenticealf.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/ebooks-formats-drm-and-you-�-a-guide-for-the-perplexe d/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2012 @ 6:32pm

My first thought...
Is how can a EULA that has to be READ AND AGREED TO be binding if it can't be READ AT ALL?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Tietjens, 29 Sep 2012 @ 6:20am

Re:
As both a published software author and an avid legal consumer of digital content, I find your expressed attitude both disgusting and reprehensible. Furthermore, you make it plain from the fact you post as anonymous coward that you are a paid spammer for the RIAA/MPAA/Publisher's Association.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2012 @ 10:18am

Blinding Madness
Frickin Blind People!

Next thing you know they will want braille stop signs!

Is there no end to this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:33am

Re:
Law! Pirate Mike! LAW! Pirate apologists! Buffoon! Law. Law. LAW!

/average joe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 6:29am

Re:
"Harry Potter and the We-Can't-Be-Bothered-With-Historical-Culture's Stone"?

Of course, this was the country that had to dub "Mad Max" (The Road Warrior)...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 1 Oct 2012 @ 7:39pm

Re:
You're too soft on them. Being/going blind is God's punishment for being filthy thieving pirates that just want everything for free and will never contribute anything to anybody. In many cases God knew how vile they would be before they were born.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 1 Oct 2012 @ 7:51pm

Re: Re:
E-books make this very possible (in the future at least). They're already working on developing eye scanners to detect people watching TV, and I have zero doubt this will be immediately used to implement pay-per-viewer business models.
[ link to this | view in thread ]