[bookport] Re: NLS Beta Program
- From: "Walt Smith" <walt@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:47:24 -0500
I don't necessarily think there's any need for forthcomingness on their
part. In fact, in the long run, the less forthcoming they are, the better
they protect the security of the new technology. Remember that once the
program actually goes into operation, they're going to be supplying all the
hardware and the user will have no reason whatever to have to know anything
about the technical side of things _unless_ they (legally or otherwise) want
to circumvent the NLS system. That is, the technology is being designed for
use on a specific NLS-supplied device about which the user has no reason to
know anything. The only reason a user _might_ want to know anything is that
said user wants to convert the NLS-format material into something else and
that's illegal and an abuse of the program. We all know, being real-world
inhabitants, that somebody's going to at least try developing a ripper that
will extract the audio from this new format and the less forthcoming NLS is,
the more difficult that illegal activity will be.
And I don't agree that we have some kind of "right" to "know" that the Book
Port; or any other off-the-shelf device, for that matter; will support NLS
digital books. NLS is going to supply their own players and that's all they
need to do. It's not their responsibility; and it may not even be their
legal right; to disclose information that would permit these new books to be
played on any device whatever other than the one they supply. A parallel
might be the four-track cassette. In the beginning, NLS had to go directly
to Phillips, who owned all of the patents and rights to the cassette format,
to get special permission to use the non-standard four-track format they
wanted to implement. Eventually, through what kind of negotiations I don't
know, APH was able to get the same permission to introduce the first
generation four-track recorders (and I still have two of them circa 1978).
Other vendors have, over the years, come out with players that will play the
special-format tapes, but I have good reason to know that in some cases, at
least, these players were illegal to the extent that the vendor did not get
permission from _anyone_ to produce them--they were just able to do so
because the details of the technology (which weren't all that difficult to
figure out, after all) were more or less in the public domain already. I
support NLS in any attempt they may be making to keep anything similar from
happening with regard to digital books and think that all this "consumerist"
rhetoric is just so much entitlement noise.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Barrett" <donter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: [bookport] Re: NLS Beta Program
Right, I just wish they would be a bit more forthcoming about discussing it.
Their silence seems unnecessary if they are truly getting ready to support
this medium. My concern is that upper management may be stalling things
since current bookport sales are probably good, and they don't want to do or
say anything that will stop sales and make folks want to wait for new units.
That's very commercial thinking and ok for them, but not very consumer
oriented. As blind consumers, we have the right to be assured that a device
such as the BookPort will support what is a truly revolutionary step in
digital book reading. This is much bigger than Audible, and will change the
way we read talking books forever.
I agree with you that it is unimaginable that they won't support the NLS
scheme, but as consumers, we have the right to assurances on that front.
APH's lack of information in this regard is quite inappropriate in my view.
Other vendors may be woefully ignorant about the NLS developments, but APH
isn't, and that makes their silence all the more confounding.
Consumerism is like democracy; we have the right to question the companies
which sell us devices in the same way we have the right to question the
officials who serve us in government, while at the same time maintaining the
highest level of respect for them and what they do.
Don
Other related posts:
