Memorandum submitted by RNIB
INTRODUCTION TO
OUR RESPONSE
We have set out our responses to the Committee's
inquiry under the four question headings of the original press
release. Within these questions we address two broad areas; what
needs to be done to ensure that blind, partially sighted and other
disabled people are not excluded from new media in terms of access
to TV services and, secondly, the role that new media and technology
can play in improving access to written information for blind
and partially sighted people, but which is currently not being
harnessed due to a lack of government support. We also raise issues
around problems that Digital Rights Management schemes are creating
for disabled people through establishing barriers to achieving
equal access to content.
WHO WE
ARE
We are the UK's major agency serving blind and
partially sighted people, dedicated to achieving positive change
and greater inclusion in all aspects of life for the two million
people in the UK with sight loss.
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. We devote significant resources to trying
to ensure that blind and partially sighted people are not left
behind by advances in technology and 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.
WHY THIS
INQUIRY MATTERS
TO BLIND
AND PARTIALLY
SIGHTED PEOPLE
1. Access to information
Each year less than 5% of books published in
standard print become available in formats such as large print,
audio or braille that people with sight loss or dyslexia will
be able to access. There are some two million people in the UK
who find it difficult or impossible to read standard print or
recognise a friend across the street. Up to a million other people
find conventional reading difficult as a result of dyslexia or
other barriers. So three million people are experiencing a chronic
shortage of information that is accessible to them and are being
denied their right to read.
2. Digital Rights Management
Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems applied
to e-Books and e-Documents can prevent access by blind and partially
sighted people who use assistive technology to read the screen
or to control the computer. 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.
3. Access to television services
Audio description, the access service for blind
and partially sighted people on TV (audio description is an additional
narration that fits in between dialogue to describe action, body
language, scenery—anything that will help a person with
a sight problem to follow what is happening on the screen) is
a recent innovation. Audio description provision still stands
at low levels with about 8% of programmes being described on the
major channels, going up to maximum 10%. Therefore as technology
changes and convergence takes place, we are extremely concerned
that disabled people are not left behind, unable to access new
media services or use the equipment needed to receive and interact
with those services. We believe this is a real and serious possibility,
unless action is taken to ensure that technology and services
are designed to be accessible.
Question 1: The impact upon creative industries
of recent and future developments in digital convergence and media
technology
We are excited by the opportunities presented
by converging digital technologies and the potential they have
to improve disabled people's access to information. Currently,
if we look at the production of books in accessible formats such
as large print, audio and braille, charities undertake most of
this work. This is done post-publication of the standard print
work, using traditional methods, such as scanning text into a
digital format.
We believe that with new technology, partnerships
and business models, we will be able to achieve simultaneous publication
of works in a range of formats, and availability of accessible
titles through mainstream retail and library sources. This will
allow a huge increase in the number of books that become available
in accessible formats (currently less than 5% of those published
each year), and allow works to be produced in accessible formats
as the same time as standard print versions, and not months afterwards
as can be the case now.
Mainstream publishing processes and the production
of accessible formats are converging. We believe that Daisy (a
format based on an open e-book standard, that allows text and/or
speech to be indexed at several levels, permitting searching,
browsing, bookmarking and retrieval) is "a better way to
publish" and that its adoption by the publishing industry
would be of benefit to all. Pending this, those publishers who
use XML (mainly academic journals) are using a format from which
temporary or permanent audio, larger print or Braille can be produced
in a relatively straightforward way.
The role of government in supporting developments
in media technology for disabled people
We are currently working in collaboration with
the publishing industry to start running pilots aimed at finding
the most cost effective way of turning publishers' various formats
into XML, from which accessible formats can be readily produced.
This pilot, and indeed the whole accessible format sector, is
hampered by Government's continued refusal to accept the creation
of accessible reading material as a legitimate area for public
expenditure. More specifically, we have to date been unable to
secure from the DCMS "Culture on Line" fund or any other
public source the £200k needed for this first pilot.
With the active involvement of the Publishers
Association, the Publishers Licensing Society and some major publishing
houses, we have been embarking on a pathfinder project to develop
a partnership between the publishing industry and the voluntary
sector. In simple terms, this involves publishers making their
digital content available in secure conditions for conversion
to an XML file. The XML files would be held in trust by an agency
such as RNIB and used as the source for accessible format copies
for order by customers such as bookshops, libraries, schools or
blind individuals. None of this demands any significant financial
outlay by publishers.
The most exciting aspect of digital technology
is that it allows a range of accessible formats to be produced
from a single master file, once this has been properly structured.
Larger print, braille and synthetic audio can be produced to suit
an individual's needs, while human audio recordings can now be
digitised and indexed. Increasingly, reference material and other
titles can be accessed flexibly by means of the Daisy Format.
New technology in action
The industry is already harnessing new technologies.
For example, Borders announced to the book trade at the Frankfurt
Book Fair, October 2005, a partnership with on-demand printers
Lightning Source to bring a much greater range of large print
titles to the market. We believe that this will be publicly announced
in March. This is a very welcome development and will mean that
a print disabled person will be able to order a large print version
of a book in Borders, which Lightning Source can produce in a
short time.
The Committee's previous recommendations in this
area
The Committee included in its report on libraries,
published in March 2005, a recommendation that DCMS take the lead
in securing greater funding for the creation of accessible formats
(para 111 and recommendation 37). DCMS, in its response issued
in July 2005, referred to the work currently being undertaken
by DTI officials with RNIB and others to establish a pilot project
to improve the amount of books made available in accessible formats,
but was silent on the issue of funding, implying that the procedures
under development would need no money.
However, responding to the same Select Committee
report, the Government announced on 20 July 2005 that it was making
£4 million of new money available for improvements to the
public library service. Clearly, funding can be released if ministers
are convinced that an adequate case has been made.
As part of the Framework for the Future implementation
plan, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) commissioned
a feasibility study: "Reading material for VIPs (visually
impaired people): using digital publishing workflows—Feasibility
study of the potential for publishers to provide their electronic
files of books to agencies for people with visual disabilities
before publication". This Study, published earlier this year,
concluded that there was ample scope to develop work in this area,
and made a number of recommendations for progress. Although some
of those have been taken up by the DTI work referred to above,
many still await attention.
However, we are very disappointed at having
been unable to secure the £200 thousand needed for this first
pilot project from the DCMS "Culture on Line" fund,
or any other public source. It seems that despite the Committee's
previous recommendation on DCMS' role, we are yet to see a clear
commitment from government, joining with the voluntary and publishing
sector, who have together already made important steps towards
securing the benefits of new technologies for the timely production
of much greater number of accessible format books.
Question 2: The extent to which a regulatory
environment should be applied to creative content accessed using
non-traditional media platforms
Access services for disabled people and non-traditional
media platforms
From a consumer perspective, the distinctions
between the different platforms that content can be received on
is becoming blurred, for example with services such as HomeChoice
and the future BT on-demand offering. Content can be received
via a PC-based platform over the internet without it having the
"feel" or "look" of a PC, and without the
consumer being fully aware that he/she is downloading from an
internet site rather than watching a traditional broadcast stream.
In addition, as technology develops, consumers will increasingly
be able to receive content on one platform and record it to play
on a different platform. For example, it will be possible to receive
TV programmes via a Freeview box, record with a PVR (personal
video recorder) and via a wireless connection transfer the contents
for viewing on a mobile phone handset or gaming console.
With these developments in mind, it is important
to ensure that the requirements on broadcasters to provide access
services for disabled consumers, such as audio description for
blind and partially sighted people, are not limited to traditional
ways of receiving television. If these requirements are not extended
to non-traditional media platforms, the provision of services
such as audio description will reduce over time as more providers
move to new platforms, instead, or in addition to traditional
platforms.
RNIB is strongly of the opinion that it would
be against the spirit of the 2003 Communications Act not to extend
to non-traditional media platforms the requirements to provide
access services such as audio description. Given the growing importance
of these new platforms, now is the right time to introduce regulation
that secures access to television for blind and partially sighted
people, so it is guaranteed for the future.
Access to information
Our main points on regulation needed to ensure
access to information:
— Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes
and technological protection measures should be designed in such
a way as not to reject disabled people using screen reading technology
to gain access.
— Publishers must not be able to "disable"
text to speech features in e-books, leading to the exclusion of
disabled people using Access Technology.
— Where a format such as pdf has accessibility
features, these should be the default settings and all users should
be strongly encouraged to use them.
— Where items have been made inaccessible,
however inadvertently, to users with sight loss, speedy, robust
and effective legal and administrative recourse must be open to
them as beneficiaries of copyright exceptions who are being denied
by technology the rights the copyright law confers on them. Current
arrangements are inadequate.
— Public procurement measures should
be used to ensure that public bodies purchase only accessible
systems for the management of their own content.
Additional information on each of these points.
Digital Rights Management: Restrictions for disabled
people using Access Technology
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 screen magnification software, 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 within mainstream packages, but the most
flexible and adaptable solutions are achieved via dedicated "screen
reader" software. The term "assistive technology"
is used to refer to these forms of access.
Access problem with DRM Schemes
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.
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.
Problems with speech output software
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.
RNIB has 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.
For example, Lynn, a person registered blind
and 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".
RNIB 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.
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. Therefore we want to see regulation
secured to preserve rights of legitimate access for disabled people.
(The additional information 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).
Ensuring that accessibility settings within programmes
are not disabled
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How do we address these challenges?
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.
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 two accessibility tools (Window-Eyes and Jaws screen
readers). Allowing access to DRM protected by content is now reportedly
the default position of the reader.
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 (eg no
printing, no altering, no saving to alternate formats).
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
15 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." 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.
The legal background to technological protection
measures
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. The
UK Government was tardy in this respect, but has now introduced
exceptions for visually impaired people through the Copyright
(Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002. However, technological protection
measures can negate these exceptions if they make it difficult
or impossible to access material in the first place.
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. They make no
specific provisions to protect the beneficiaries of exceptions
to copyright.
The UK and the European Union will shortly be
ratifying these treaties. To pave the way for this, an Order designating
the two "WIPO internet treaties" as European Community
treaties has recently been debated and approved in Parliament.
The Order still needs to be made in the Privy Council.
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.
* Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain
aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.
The UK Government transposed this part of the
Directive into UK law in Section 296Z of Statutory Instrument
2003: 2498. The procedures set out in that Section have not yet
been fully put to the test. However, they appear slow and cumbersome,
and are unlikely to help someone such as a student with an urgent
need to consult a particular document, which is not available
in a format they can access. Furthermore, they appear to lack
teeth in situations where a rights holder is reluctant to comply
with a determination by the Secretary of State.
The Society of College, National and University
Lecturers (SCONUL) has also very aptly pointed out:
"In libraries in higher education we are
faced with a conflict of laws. The Special Educational Needs and
Disability Act 2001 requires (at section 28) institutions to `take
reasonable steps' to allow disabled people to enjoy facilities
on an equitable basis vis-a"-vis their peers. Yet
librarians are forbidden by s.296ZA of the Copyright Designs and
Patents Act, 1988 (as amended by S.I. 2003: 2498) to interfere
with protection measures even to make `accessible' copies for
visually impaired people. In practice the means of escape from
this conflict of laws are very cumbersome."
The role of Parliament
We should like Parliament to consider ways of
strengthening these provisions in favour of the beneficiaries
of exceptions. 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. Prompt legal or administrative
measures are also required.
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, the Commission conducted work
on DRM. This illustrates 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.
Public procurement measures should be used to ensure
that public bodies purchase only accessible systems for the management
of their own content
In December this year the Disability Equality
Duty within the 2005 Disability Discrimination Act will come into
force. This duty will require all public sector bodies to promote
equality of opportunity for disabled people, whether as employees
or users of services. We believe that this duty will have a significant
impact in the way that public bodies conduct their procurement
tendering processes and ultimately in the accessibility of the
equipment and software they are purchasing.
Currently we know of a number of systems that
have been implemented within public sector bodies that have been
inaccessible for disabled people to use, because they have not
been compatible with different types of Access Technology. In
relation to DRM, we believe that the Disability Equality Duty
will require that systems put in place do not restrict access
to content for disabled employees or service users. This will
therefore range from internal resources within a body used by
staff to information on websites used by the public.
Question 3: Where the balance should lie between
the rights of creators and the expectations of consumers in the
context of the BBC's Creative Archive and other developments
Blind and partially sighted consumers expect
to have the same possibilities to download material and/or watch
it after its original transmission date as other consumers. This
implies that creators of on-demand services have to make their
navigation, programming and usage fully accessible and to incorporate
accessibility and testing with disabled consumers at an early
development stage.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The impact upon creative industries of
recent and future developments in digital convergence and media
technology
— Government must accept its role,
in partnership with the voluntary sector and publishers, in tackling
the lack of accessible information available to print disabled
people through securing the benefits of new technologies for the
timely production of much greater number of accessible format
books. We believe that this should take the form of funding from
DCMS for the pilot scheme mentioned in our response to question
1.
— We believe that DCMS has not taken
appropriate note of the Committee's March 2005 report on libraries
that recommended DCMS take a lead role in securing greater funding
for the production of accessible format books.
2. Regulation
Digital Rights Management issues
— Parliament and Government have an
important role to play in streamlining and clarifying the procedures
required when inadequately designed DRM schemes throw up barriers
for users with sight loss. Mechanisms are required which can lead
to a prompt resolution of this sort of difficulty.
— The Government announced on 2 December
2005 that it was setting up an independent review of UK intellectual
property law under the chairmanship of Andrew Gowers. These issues
must be covered by that review.
— 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.
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.
3. Regulation of non-traditional media platforms
— RNIB is strongly of the opinion that
it would be against the spirit of the 2003 Communications Act
not to extend to non-traditional media platforms the requirements
to provide access services such as audio description. Given the
growing importance of these new platforms, now is the right time
to introduce regulation that secures access to television for
blind and partially sighted people, so it is guaranteed for the
future.
4. Where the balance should lie between the
rights of creators and the expectations of consumers in the context
of the BBC's Creative Archive and other developments
— Blind and partially sighted consumers
expect creators of on-demand services to make their navigation,
programming and usage fully accessible and to incorporate accessibility
and testing with disabled consumers at an early development stage.
28 February 2006
| 
