[Athen] FW: House Subcommittee Vote Could End Books for the Blind.

Ron Stewart ron.stewart at dolphinusa.com
Sat Jun 9 08:51:32 PDT 2007


Pullling out the soapbox here. You can substitute Distance Educaition for
print access in this conversation as well.

This is not just a blindness issue! And as long as it is presented as only
a VI/B issue it is never going to go anyplace. This is a VI/B, ADD/ADHD, LD,
Cognitive Processing, Dyslexic, Developmental Disability, TBI, and
Psyciatric disability issue. Did I miss any? I do not even want to being
talking about ESL and developmental Ed. From my perspecitive, at its heart,
it is another issue about inclusion and acceptance of folks with
disabilities in our global society. This is not just about Blind Readers
but the entire continuum of people with disabilities related to their
ability to effectively use print based materials. If we look at all
students who would benefit from more accessible curriculum it could easily
be as high as 25% of our students. As long as the conversation remains a
blind centric one the issues of inclusion and success are going to remain on
the margins of the mainstream discussion.

This is true for all topics of educational and societal reform for all
groups that are living on the margins of mainstream society. In the last
few years I have now been involved in more conversations that I care to
count on this topic and often one of the first questions that comes up is
why can we not make any progress on this, and my typicall response is until
you start to include the other 75% of folks with print related disabilities
you will not. These other groups are not typically as organized or as vocal
as the VI/B groups and that contributes to the problem. Often times the
groups involved are so worried about protecting their turf and closed
agendas that it all gets lost in the real need of the people we are
dedicated to serving.

Being very involved in the whole Alt Format discussion on a global basis
this still does not effectively explain to me why the NLS felt it necessary
to go out and develop propriety closed market technology. I was at a DAISY
technical meeting this last week in Toronto and asked a question about
expansion beyond the focus on the special libraries to include the
educaitional space in the development of the specifications and it was not a
place anyone else at the table seemed to want to go. This kind of thinking
promotes the possible irrelevance of the DAISY work as the mainstream
technology moves beyond it. Don't get me wrong I am a strong advocate for
DAISY and its impact on our students, but that is the result of closed
technology development especially in the current fluid and dymanic IT world.

The compliance with closed format and protection of intellection property do
not in any way require this kind of reader. Since they published their
original strategic plan this has been a topic of conversation and concern.
The more they went down the closed technology route the more it came up.
Nor does it explain why other national libraries are doing some of the same
things, don't make questionable decisions unless your willing to deal with
the consiquences. If the various development communities, both public and
private, have good robust technologies in the marketspace then that is the
first place agencies should look for solution. Especially when they are
using public funds for the process.

The DAISY PTDB2 standard for DRM in DAISY books provides for a very good set
of protocols for insuring that Intellectual Property rights are protected in
the development and distribution of DAISY materials. With my work in the
AHEAD E-Text and NIMAS groups I have found that the discussion about
copyright is typically a slippery slope and straw man argument. That is why
we have made the decision to put it aside and focus on pragmatic solutions
to the issues at hand at least in the AHEAD work. The topic does need to
be revisited and the Chaffee exemption brought into the information age, but
no one wants to open up the copyright law that is aware of all the competing
issues most of which are not even related to access and disability.

When the government is trying to cut funds at every turn, it does our effort
no good to shoot ourselves in the foot. Secondly the House SubCommittee is
not intending to End books for the blind they are doing our job and asking
some hard questions about the appropriate use of public funds. Do I think
they should spend their time looking at pork elsewhere, of course, but when
a government agency puts this kind of target on their back what should they


-----Original Message-----
From: athen-bounces at athenpro.org [mailto:athen-bounces at athenpro.org] On
Behalf Of Kestrell
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:28 AM
To: Access Technologists in Higher Education Network
Subject: Re: [Athen] FW: House Subcommittee Vote Could End Books for the


I have spoken to a number of people involved in special librariaries for the

blind, and all of them insist that their players, hardware as well as
software, must include DRM restrictions or the libraries will not be able to

get the cooperations of publishers in distributing their work. My impression

is that the state of the technology is dictated by the libraries' lawyers,
and that perspective dictates the design of the technology, the distribution

method, and everything else involved in the design and distribution of the
books and the players.

There are lots of blind readers who comprehend that this is not the most
efficient or most economically sound method for doing things, but those
dissenters seem tobe in the minority, or, at least, not on any of the
committees that make the decisions.

Ultimately, I find it sadly ironic that the same government which is taking
the NLS to task for insisting on the more expensive "special formats" is the

same government that has contributed so much to the arcane nature of the
copyright laws which have left the special libraries so paranoid about being

held accountable for any infringement that they feel compelled to go design
these special players (read the copyright declaration on any of these NLS or

RFBD or even Bookshare books and you will get an idea of how the format
dictates the player and the distribution method, and even the relationship
witht he consumer).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Stewart" <ron.stewart at dolphinusa.com>
To: "'Access Technologists in Higher Education Network'"
<athen at athenpro.org>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: [Athen] FW: House Subcommittee Vote Could End Books for the Blind.

>I have a tendency to stick my foot into sticky things and I also know that

> if I respond on any of the blindness lists I would be tarred and

> feathered.



> Based on my understanding from a recent trip to Washigton DC and a couple

> of

> conversations with legislative types, the number one issue for the funding

> is the fact that the NLS did not use off the shelf technology or work with

> any of the exsisting commercial solutions to build this reader. This has

> been an issue throughout the development process on this reader, and to be

> honest I am not surprised by this at all. It is becoming more and more of

> an issues with federal funding of projects when the project goes off and

> reinvents the wheel like this.


> Anybody want to help me become better informed on the whys and werefores

> of

> this.


> Ron Stewart


> -----Original Message-----

> From: blindnews-bounces at blindprogramming.com

> [mailto:blindnews-bounces at blindprogramming.com] On Behalf Of BlindNews

> Mailing List

> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:43 PM

> To: Blind News

> Subject: House Subcommittee Vote Could End Books for the Blind.


> House Subcommittee Vote Could End Books for the Blind.



> PressRelease

> Author : National Federation of the Blind

> Earthtimes.org - USA

> Thu, 07 Jun 2007.



> On Wednesday, June 6, the House of Representatives Legislative Branch

> Appropriations Subcommittee voted to substantially underfund the Books for

> the Blind program of the Library of Congress.


> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said:

> "Since 1931, Congress has consistently supported on a bipartisan basis a

> national program of audio and Braille books for the blind, operated by the

> Library of Congress. The blind of America are shocked and disappointed

> that

> a House subcommittee has callously disregarded our literacy needs since

> literacy leads to independence. By appropriating only $7.5 million of the

> $19.1 million needed for transition from antiquated analog cassette tape

> technology to digital technology, the subcommittee has effectively voted

> to

> shut down the only public library available to blind Americans. The audio

> books produced by the Library of Congress will be useless unless the

> digital

> playback technology is provided for readers. The Talking Book program is

> at

> a crossroads because the analog tape used for the past thirty-six years

> has

> become obsolete and must be replaced for the program to continue.

> Virtually,

> all government programs, except Books for the Blind, have converted to

> state-of-the-art digital communication technology at a cost of billions of

> dollars to the taxpayers. Leaving the Books for the Blind program behind

> is

> unconscionable. Since it is early in the appropriations process, however,

> Congress still has time to correct this grievous error. We therefore

> urgently appeal to the full House Appropriations Committee, the members of

> the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate to provide the

> full $19.1 million requested by the National Library Service for the Blind

> and Physically Handicapped of the Library of Congress to begin production

> of

> digital talking books and players."


> The Talking Book program serves over 750,000 blind Americans, including

> blind children and an ever-increasing number of older Americans who are

> losing vision. The incidence of blindness is expected to increase as the

> baby boom generation reaches retirement age. Therefore, the need for this

> essential program will only increase.


> CONTACT: John G. Pare Jr., Director of Public Relations of the National

> Federation of the Blind, +1-410-659-9314, extension 2371, Cell:

> +1-410-913-3912, jpare at nfb.org


> Web site: http://www.nfb.org/


> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,118989.shtml




> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL:



> ents/20070608/aab3ec00/attachment.html

> --

> BlindNews mailing list


> To contact a list moderator about a problem or to make a request, send a

> message to BlindNews-Owner at BlindProgramming.com


> The BlindNews list is archived at: http://GeoffAndWen.com/blind/


> To address a message to all members of the list, send mail to:

> BlindNews at blindprogramming.com


> Access your subscription info at:




> To unsubscribe via e-mail: send a message to

> BlindNews-Request at BlindProgramming.com with the word unsubscribe in either

> the subject or body of the message




> _______________________________________________

> Athen mailing list

> Athen at athenpro.org

> http://athenpro.org/mailman/listinfo/athen_athenpro.org

Athen mailing list
Athen at athenpro.org

More information about the athen-list mailing list