I just hope the copyright exemption for disabled people doesn’t fence them in, in the long run – this is the federal government we are talking about, after all!

NLS must offer a stable player design that users and libraries can learn and become proficient with. A system where the player and its user interface changes frequently will not be successful, as the less adaptable patrons will be lost when the player changes, and libraries will have too many types of players to explain…Player (and medium) must be based on open standards so that NLS can procure products competitively from a number of sources and so that the loss of a single company does not eliminate our only source of a product.

I don’t think the NLS’s restrictions on use are unreasonable. First of all, it’s an expensive service, provided for free, and it makes sense for them to focus on those who are most in need of it. As I mentioned in the post, I work for the mobile services branch of a public library, which delivers library materials to people’s homes. Of course many people would love to receive this service, but we exclude people who are physically able to get to a library branch on their own, simply because we can’t afford to serve everyone so we focus on those who need&emdash;not just those who want&emdash;the service.

Second, NLS is able to make recordings of works that are otherwise unavailable in audio form because of copyright restrictions. This is because of a federal law which grants an exemption from copyright as long as the materials go to blind patrons. (At least, this is my understanding of the law. I’m not a legal expert by any means, so for more on the applicable laws see this page.)

However, I agree with you that plenty of people who are not blind are still interested in receiving audiobooks. This is why libraries buy books on CD and (usually DRM-protected) digital audio. My point is that public libraries should follow the lead of NLS and also provide the equipment needed to use these materials.

Overall I agree with what you said, but it’s funny you bring up the National Library Service (NLS) as a model. I have come to believe that the NLS does a disservice to all audiobook readers, blind or not, by creating a segregated system.

Why do you need to ‘qualify’ to check out an audiobook from the NLS? Because publishers ‘donated’ the rights, via the copyright exemption, for the audio, as long as the only people using it are blind or visually-impaired.

One problem with this system is that public money is used to build what is essentially a segregated system. Blind people can check out books from the public library, but the public can’t check out books from the ‘library for the blind’.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the NLS to simply commission more audiobooks to be recorded for everyone to enjoy? Publishers might actually take an interest in blind people as customers, instead of assuming the government is ‘taking care’ of them.

I am not blind, but I have heard from a few people that are that they would prefer to get all their books from the public library, without having to ‘qualify’, more or less than any other citizen.

Cheers,
Bob

Thanks for comment on tametheweb.com too.
Lee