1.1 The European Blind Union (EBU) and its member organisations
throughout the European Union are very concerned at the impact which digital
rights management schemes can have on both blind and partially sighted people,
and indeed others with a reading related disability such as dyslexia. We can be
denied equal access to knowledge and culture if digital rights management
schemes are inadequately designed or unfairly deployed.
1.2 Full and equitable access to information is essential if people with
sight loss are to compete on equal terms in education and employment. It is also
essential to full enjoyment of all aspects of daily life and of the potential
advantages which modern technology brings. Voluntary agencies serving people
with sight loss in member states devote significant voluntary resources to
trying to ensure that blind and partially sighted people are not left behind by
advances in communication, be it in the fields of broadcasting,
telecommunications or publishing. This is an extremely challenging task, given
the speed of development in these fields.
2.1 Blind, partially sighted and other print disabled people read
electronic material by modifying the way in which it is presented, without
modifying the content. They may do this through magnification, transformation
into synthetic audio, or the use of a temporary, or "refreshable" braille
display. In some instances the software with which to make these changes is
incorporated in mainstream packages, but the most flexible and adaptable
solutions are achieved via dedicated "screen reader" software. The term
"assistive technology" is used in this document to refer to this form of access.
2.2 Digital rights management schemes, or the technological protection
measures within them, can react to assistive technology as if it was an illicit
operation. Thus, the DRM systems applied to e-Books and e-Documents can prevent
access by people who use assistive technology to read the screen or to control
the computer.
2.3 In those circumstances, the blind user is prevented from achieving
the same degree of access as his sighted counterpart, or indeed any access at
all.
2.4 A second problem can be the "disabling" of speech functions in a
particular publication. While e-book readers may have the facility to reproduce
synthetic speech, the rights holder can apply a level of security which prevents
this from working. A person with sight loss can thus buy a book but find herself
unable to read it.
2.5 We have been contacted by several people who have purchased e-Books
from both major retailer and small publishers, only to find that they are unable
to read them because of the way that the DRM has been applied.
2.6 For example, Lynn from London bought a Bible from Amazon, and found
that the content was locked in such a way that she could not read it with her
screen reader. She contacted Amazon who advised her to contact the publisher.
Having taken this extraordinary step, she was told "there is nothing we can do
about it".
2.7 EBU views this as discriminatory practice, as publishers are erecting
barriers to access, however unwittingly. We do not believe there are commercial
or technical reasons for this to continue.
2.8 This situation is in fact deeply ironic, since an e-Book can be a
great way to make publications accessible to people who cannot read print. It is
unsatisfactory and unnecessary because technology companies such as Adobe have
actually taken steps to ensure that content can be protected and yet access
still provided to disabled customers.
3.1 We recommend an article entitled "The sound Proof Book", by George
Kerscher, International Project Manager, DAISY Consortium And Jim Fruchterman,
CEO, the Benetech Initiative. This can also be found at:
www.daisy.org/publications/docs/soundproof/sound_proof_book.html Although
written some time ago, this article has not lost its validity, and still
poignantly illustrates the threats posed by DRM.
3.2 The additional information in the rest of Section 3 below is drawn
largely from "Accessing and Protecting Content", by Garnett, White and Mann, a
report prepared during 2005 by RNIB within the European Accessible Information
Network Project, www.euain.org, funded by the
European Commission.
3.3 Both Adobe Security and Adobe DRM can be configured to restrict the
use of access tools such as screen readers. Typically, a commercial document or
e-book in PDF format will have all accessibility features disabled. This is not
the default position but is easily and most often selected by commercial
publishers.
3.4 Microsoft e-book reader sells most of its titles with an "owner
exclusive" level of security. In addition to having this "anti-piracy" function,
the Owner Exclusive book also has use restrictions that apply to the legitimate
owner of the e-book. In particular the text-to-speech capability that is built
into Microsoft Reader for accessibility purposes is disabled. Similarly, "Owner
Exclusive " limits use of the product to one device, which prevents a visually
impaired user from downloading from a desk top PC to a more congenial device
such as a lap top braille notetaker.
3.5 The objective of applying DRM to a piece of content is to define and
implement the rules for the access to and use of that content. To achieve this,
the DRM system has to operate in a controlled and trusted environment in which
it is able to control all the options available to a user of the content.
3.6 This control requirement extends to accessibility tools – and
explains the problems which have arisen in a conflict between DRM and
accessibility. The Microsoft text to speech (TTS) synthesis tool has a broad
functionality which is also incorporated in the Adobe Acrobat Reader. As a tool
it is considered to pose a threat to DRM controlled content because of its broad
functionality and because it does not connect in a trusted manner with the DRM
system.
3.7 This is why the DRM system in the Microsoft e-Book Reader application
blocks the use of the TTS tool when the DRM is configured to manage the rights
in premium (commercial) content. This was originally the default position with
the Adobe Reader.
3.8 There are essentially two ways in which this problem can be
addressed. The first is to set up a system where the DRM mechanism is able to
recognise a trusted accessibility tool and then unblock access to content for
that tool. The second way is by devising instructions, expressed through the
rights expression language, which are available to authorised users of trusted
access tools.
3.9 Adobe has already initiated a program incorporating the first
approach. The DRM system used in the Adobe reader is now able to recognise and
establish a trusted relationship with at least 2 accessibility tools
(Window-Eyes and Jaws screen readers). Allowing access to DRM protected by
content is now reportedly the default position of the reader.
3.10 The effect of this trusted relationship between the Reader and the
accessibility tools is that access (including text to speech) can be facilitated
without in any way derogating from the security level applied to the content
generally (e.g. no printing, no altering, no saving to alternate formats).
3.11 To achieve this relationship, third party applications are submitted
to Adobe for testing the security and compatibility issues. To quote from
Adobe's Loretta Guarino Reid, in a response to an enquiry from the RNIB
"Techies" e-mail list dated 15th December, 2005 : "Our solution depends on a
special mechanism that vendors can use to identify themselves as trusted
clients. To implement this properly really requires suitable operating system
support to provide a secure channel to trusted client programs, and a good
mechanism for validating the identity of the client program."
3.12 Thus the feasibility of access to Adobe DRM through assistive
technology has been established, but effective realisation remains protracted
and by no means universally rolled out.
4.1 International treaties have long permitted national legislatures
to introduce exceptions and limitations to copyright in various circumstances,
including exceptions and limitations for the benefit of people with a reading
related disability. By no means all EU member states yet have such exceptions,
and there is no consistency amongst the exception regimes that do exist.
4.2 Unfortunately, technological protection measures can negate these
exceptions if they make it difficult or impossible to access material which one
is entitled to read.
4.3 At international level, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). require, in Articles 11 and 18
respectively, legal protection for rights holders using technological protection
measures. However, They make no specific provisions to protect the beneficiaries
of exceptions to copyright whose access is blocked by such measures.
4.4 Individual member states and the European Union collectively will
shortly be ratifying these treaties.
4.5 Fortunately, the European Copyright Directive* is more helpful. While
it, too, seeks adequate safeguards for rights holders against the circumvention
of technological protection measures, it does state in Article 6.4.1 :
"…in the absence of voluntary measures taken by right holders, including
agreements between right holders and other parties concerned, Member States
shall take appropriate measures to ensure that right holders make available to
the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in
accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or
(3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent
necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that
beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned."
Article 5.3.b. is the one relating to exceptions and limitations for the benefit
of people with a reading related disability. Hence the Directive envisages
protection against technological exclusion for such users.
4.6 Again, there is no evident consistency in the way in which these
provisions are being transposed into national law. It is ironic that a directive
which has the word "harmonisation" in its title does nothing to harmonise
exceptions to copyright or protection of the beneficiaries of those exceptions
that do exist. The EUAIN project (referred to above) will be analysing the
implementation across the EU of Article 6.4.1 and, if appropriate, making
recommendations to the Commission on required changes.
4.7 It is essential that governments set up robust, effective and
efficient procedures to allow print disabled people who find their access
blocked by a technological protection measure to gain the access to which they
are entitled. For legislation to permit circumvention in certain well-defined
circumstances would be helpful. That alone, however, would not be the total
answer, as the potential user might not have the necessary skills to circumvent.
Arrangements for prompt legal or administrative recourse are also required.
4.8 European Initiatives :
As already noted, the European Union has recognised that copyright exceptions
for disabled people may be compromised by the technological protection measures
within DRM Systems. Subsequent to the passage of the Directive, both DG
Information Society and DG Enterprise conducted work on DRM. This work indicated
that the whole issue remains fluid and largely untested, and that
interoperability and protection of consumer rights are key issues which still
need to be safeguarded.
5.1 Governments and Parliaments have a duty
a) to ensure that they have comprehensive and up to date provisions to
ensure that accessible copies of all published material can be created without
the requirement for rights holder permission; and
b) to establish effective measures to give the beneficiaries of such
exceptions immediate and equitable access to material from which they find
themselves excluded by protection or rights management measures.
5.2 If such procedures can be achieved through voluntary agreement with
rights holder groups they will probably work more smoothly, but legal backing
for the right of access is essential in the interests of social inclusion and
equitable treatment of people with disabilities.
5.3 The publishing and IT industries also have an important role to play.
The developers of DRM schemes should apply principles of universal design. They
must address the impact of DRM on readers using assistive technology, ensuring
that such technology is recognised as legitimate and authorising appropriate
manipulation of the way in which content is presented (Ref. in particular Para.
3.12 above).
5.4 It is also in publishers' interests to ensure that the way in which
their assets are packaged do not limit the number of potential customers.
David Mann
Chair, EBU Working Group on Copyright and Publishing
18th January, 2006