Glyn Moody’s analysis of this story seems pretty spot on to me.
First, in what sense is providing more access to the visually impaired not compatible with US copyright laws? The proponents of this change have gone out of their way to make sure that the access given is within current copyright regimes, which are not serving this huge, disadvantaged constituency properly. And how would it undermine expanded access? It would, manifestly, provide access that is not available now; the publishers have proposed nothing that would address the problem other than saying the system’s fine, we don’t want to change it.
This paints the position of the copyright maximalists in the most extreme light. It truly makes it hard to be sympathetic with those harping on the moral rights of the authors if this is the logical conclusion to which that view leads.