Why do you feel Overdrive is restrictive DRM? I don't feel that at all.
Overdrive can be used with your player of choice (IPod, MP3 Player, CD,
or 'puter) our local lending library (The Boston Public Library System,
god bless them for a great system) even gives patrons instructions on
how to use Overdrive books downloaded from the, on patrons' player of
choice. You can't compare that to BARD where the required players create
a restrictive market which is heavily slanted towards a few specific
vendors. The copyright issues are the same between BARD and the average
local lending library that offers electronic media, so why is the
implementation different? You are correct abot the history of the
talking book library. But, with the proliferation of electronic media in
mainstream libraries a separate and very unequal system for the blind is
totally a dinosaur, IMHO.
-----Original Message-----
From: pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org
[mailto:pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Chaltain
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 10:03 AM
To: PC Audio Discussion List
Subject: Re: It's Still Stealing
Wow, I can't respond to all of these unsubstantiated allegations. This
is the first I've heard though that the whole existence of BARD is to
line the pockets of some select blind people. I tend to doubt this is
the case myself.
I'm sure other distribution mechanisms could have been used, including
leveraging existing municipal libraries. These libraries aren't federal
though, and not every state or community is going to have the same set
of services available through their local library system. Also, remember
that the network of state libraries has been around for decades and it's
original purpose was to distribute materials to the blind, especially
blinded vetrans. Even today, computer savvy patrons are in the minority
of NLS users. This is also why the player and cartridges are so easy to
use and service like supporting other media, PC's and the like aren't
supported.
I'm not sure how you can say that this somehow indicates that the blind
are more disposed to piracy than the general community. Several analgies
have been made on this list to Sony and Apple, which have nothing to do
with the blind. You even mention Overdrive, which protects most of it's
content. Audible and other services which don't cater to the blind have
their own protected formats.
There are some blind people though who feel that because of the
relatively weak economic state of the blind as a whole that they're well
within their rights to take whatever they need when they feel the cost
is unreasonable. I don't believe this is unique to the blind though. The
whole issue of DRM is not a blindness issue. Many sighted people feel
they're allowed to steal music because RIAA is evil.
--
Christopher
chalt...@gmail.com
On 4/19/2010 8:42 AM, Frank Ventura wrote:
That is where you are wrong. There are many folks whom have made very
handsome profits from BARD. Those players don't just fall from the sky
you know. They cost money to make and design and that is profit for
someone. Also the very existence of BARD is, and has always, been to
provide paid positions for some very connected blind folks. Think
about
it. Why do we even need our own system of libraries? Hundreds of
thousands of local lending libraries throughout the US provide a range
of print, audio, visual, and electronic media to lend to the masses
every day without the same knee jerk concerns of copyright violation.
You can just as easily go to your local library and photocopy a book,
dub a audio tape or copy an overdrive book. Does the government think
blind folks are more predispositioned to piracy than ordinary folks,
that we need such extreme measures that the rest of our culture does
not? There is no reason why our nations infrastructure of lending
libraries could not be the venues for electronic media not just for
the
sighted but blind alike but that would take payola out of the pockets
of
quite a few blind folks now wouldn't it? Yes folks you cannot leave
profit out of this conversation, sad to say.
-----Original Message-----
From: pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org
[mailto:pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org] On Behalf Of Christopher
Chaltain
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 2:16 AM
To: 'PC Audio Discussion List'
Subject: RE: It's Still Stealing
The reason in my mind is that you are signing up for a service
provided
by
the US government. This service is free of charge, and you are
agreeing
to
it's terms when you sign up for it. The law enabling this service aims
to
provide material free to the blind while protecting the rights of the
publishers. This program is intended for all blind citizens of the US
and
not just those with PC's. This is not a business or profit making
venture,
but is paid for by tax dollars, of which I'm a tax payer. Your
analogies
to
Sony and Apple just don't apply. Even though we have the luxury of
keeping
the books around and playing them on multiple players, it doesn't
change
the
fact that this is a library, and we're borrowing these books.
BTW, there is no way to listen to these books on a PC. You need a
player
provided for free by the NLS or you can purchase several different
book
players.
--
Christopher
chalt...@gmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org
[mailto:pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org]
On Behalf Of James Homuth
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 6:48 PM
To: 'PC Audio Discussion List'
Subject: RE: It's Still Stealing
Kevin, the point is this. Why should you, after obtaining the NLS
books,
have to go and get one of the NLS approved players just to enjoy the
privelege of being able to listen to the book while not at the
computer?
That would be like Soni putting out an album with copy protection that
limitted what you could play it on to CD players manufactured by Soni.
Soni
already tried the whole copy protection to prevent people from putting
the
contents of CD's on their computers, or copying them to other CD's. A
pretty
high-profile lawsuit later, they don't do that anymore. Apple tried to
say
you could only put music you purchased from iTunes on your iPod. You
couldn't burn that to CD, or play it in anything else that wasn't
either
your iPod or iTunes. Specificly, the version of iTunes on the computer
to
which it was downloaded. Without getting into the nitty gritty
details,
let's just say they don't do that anymore either. The same applies to
NLS.
The only reason it hasn't changed yet is because there's no reason for
them
to, according to them. Hence, people will continue to break the copy
protection anyway.
-----Original Message-----
From: pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org
[mailto:pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org]
On Behalf Of Kevin Minor
Sent: April 18, 2010 6:02 PM
To: 'PC Audio Discussion List'
Subject: RE: It's Still Stealing
Hi John and list.
I'm going to comment on several messages that I've seen on this topic.
First, John, I wonder if your direct boss is the owner of the station.
If
he is, the station may get into trouble if publishers find out he is
allowing material sent to the station is being copied. This material
is
specificly for the use of the station. In fact, I'm not sure if the
owner
of the CD actually owns the music. With software, you are licensed to
use
the software. You don't own the copy you use, you just have a license
for
it. I'm not blaming you for copying the CD's. Just be aware that the
station could be in legal trouble if investigated.
As for using VCR's or tape recorders, this has been a debate that the
publishers of material have had with people for years. I don't know
the
legal wording, but I believe that courts have ruled that so long as
you
use
the material you obtain from over the air, you have the right to use
it
for
your own private use. This also holds for albums you buy. If you
decide to
make a compilation CD for a friend, technicly you're breaking the law.
I'm
guilty of doing this myself. I'm not getting anything for what I do
either,
but that doesn't make what I do legal.
As for recording material over a computer, there has been a product
cease
production precisely because of this, and it made many blind people
mad.
XM
had a great device called a PCR. You'd hook the antenna to it, run a
cable
from it to either the line in jack of your sound card or stereo, and
hook it
up to your computer with a USB cable. The software that came with it
displayed the channel you were on, as well as the title and artist of
the
song being played. Unfortunately, someone figured out how to convert
the
audio into labeled mp3 files. I say unfortunately, because the RIAA
learned
about this and threated to sue XM. The product no longer was made. I
did
get lucky and purchased one of these. It's not the most accessible
piece of
equipment with a screen reader, but you can view the title of the song
that
is being played, as well as easily switch channels by entering their
number.
Now for my comments on BARD, which I'll call NLS. First, it's not
true
that
you have to buy a player to listen to NLS books. Your local library
can
provide you with a free player to play this content. It not only
plays
NLS
content, but mp3 files, as well as some other standard audio file
formats.
It's true that you can't play things like books from Audible, but you
can't
beat the price of either the player or the books you can download.
It's
true that the books are in a protected form, but I personally don't
have
a
problem with this.
Finally, we could have limitless arguments on what publishers should
get
for
their work, how they protect it, and ways to circumvent these
protection
schemes. In short, if someone copy protects something, someone will
find a
way to crack it. As for NLS, I think it's sad that it's limited to
U.S.
citizens, but I understand why.
Have a good day, and don't work too hard.
Kevin Minor
kmi...@windstream.net
