I don't know what resources are available to Sing Out. I'd be surprised if a folk music magazine were a huge moneyspinner, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I don't disagree that they blew it, but all they did was publish an on-line version using the same technology as Business Week, The Economist, PC World and Penthouse, to name just a few. It's hard to blame them for following what appears to be the industry standard. They then publish an alternative version in pdf, which Adobe claims is full of features to improve accessibility, but it seems that isn't adequate.

To me, it sounds like a small business trying to keep up with technology and getting caught out. Big business and even governments have also been caught out by technology which promises much but delivers little, usually at great cost.

What I would like to know is what took place to provoke the alleged boycott (if it is in fact genuine). The tone of the original statement purporting to come from the NABM seems fairly aggressive, and I wonder what has happened to provoke such a reaction.

Assuming the statement is genuine, I'm wondering what it expects to achieve by the boycott and legal action. Sing Out will be faced with legal costs in defending the action. They may not be able to withdraw the on-line version if they have signed a long-term contract with Zinio. They may have to invest resources in developing an accessible version, which perhaps they can't afford - the appeals for help on their website suggests they're out of their depth with this. It seems to me that a possible outcome is not that the visually impaired will get an accessible version but that the whole magazine will go bust.

I'm left wondering why the NABM or its parent organisation aren't taking action against Zinio or the bigger titles which perhaps do have the resources to resolve the problem. Perhaps its because they also have the resources to fight it effectively.